[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I see no weakness with May. What is an acceptable deal, what exactly does England want? "Nebulous" is exactly the word that describes England's "position". What is this position? The EU's position encompassing that of 26 other nations have been clear from day one. The only thing that changed is getting the demand down to 39 billions, from the former 100, as if that was nothing. Lots of projects will not be finished now because of this concession, including some in Ireland, Scotland, and England. A lot of countries are not amused at all about this concession. They will have to pay, because of your brexit.

Have you have imagined that those 100 billion maybe were exaggerated from day one on to let this settled value now appear as a big own sacrifice by the eU?



The UK now has many camps battling each other, which si their greatest handicap. But what the UK wants and offers, they have said relatvoey early on already. It just was not what the EU wanted. An in all points, the concessions were made by the UK, and I do not know of any signfivcant point where the EU made any. So much for compromise - in this draft deal, it is a one-way road only.


That some countries want one country to pay for something, does not automatically give them claim for this country. The UK agreed to plannings in the past BEFORE the maority of the referendu voters said they want to leave. That there thus must be an end to the UK payng for these things, is natural. Reason also would demand that the UK, even after a leave, keeps a say on all things it has agreed to continue paying for, since that also was part of the dcision why they earlier agreed to pay for them. You are absolutely biased and one-sided here.


If you ent a flat and then tell the landlord that you leave again some years later, you are under no obligation to endlessly pay a rent nevertheless. The transition period is limited, and has been cut even shorter by courts some years ago. Only deliveries to your old adress that you have ordered, must be paid for by yourself, even if you already have left, else they RTS.


In general you say that the UK shuld not even leave, not to mention: stop paying, becasue in the future EU states planned to have a profit from this net payer'S contributions. In my book that borders enslavement.



A people has no claim for other people. A people cannot own other people. A people does not live for the sake of having another people profiting from them.


The EU has to change its highflying plans. Well, what a shock. Many of them are wrong by their mere intention and content anyway.

The UK leaves the EU and wants to keep voting rights. England has signed treaties for 7-year projects that will end in 2020, and this is what England has signed, officially, in those treaties.

Under the premisse to have a say in them and remaining to stay in the EU. You can expect them to pay on only for things they have said yes to since the Brexit vote.

The European Union is based on the rule of law. England does not pay for a "priviledge", it pays 60 billions less than signed for,

It had not signed for that number, the EU tried to dicate it, and I remember very well how in the early months this numbers was miunted by Brussel higher and higher in a bid to scare the English away fro the Brewxit vote. Originally, Brussel wanted I think 45 billion. Then 60 billion. suddenly they talked of 79 billion, and finally they had 100 billion. Hilarious.

to finish projects it itself initiated, together with 27 other nations, and sure not for voting rights!

Again: under the premisse that they have a say in thse things and that the UK would remain to be a member of the EU.

That England keeps its voting rights until 2020 is ok in my book, but surely not further. And this possibility has nothing to do with paying, though the EU would be entitled to cancel the vote due to the break imho.

In which case the UK has the freedom to rejct any payment at all, of course. You want it all on your behalf, but you do not see that the past decisons were embedded in contexts that are n longer valid and that the deal is a give and take. So far the eU takes almsot all like it wanted it. I do not recall any of the outspoken goals of May havign been seen through by her, she had to call them off, one by one, all of them.

As i see it the english brexiters give a rat's anus about treaties and what they call friends and allies. They want to get out and do not care for consequences. If England wants to impose tariffs the EU will act accordingly. But it is not about tariffs, it is about holding back goods for days and weeks due to customs, because quality and seal is not longer guaranteed. All will be harder, all will be more expensive, and i cannot imagine to see any people benefit from that.

And that is why? Because th EU wnats to execute an exmaple on the UK, and refuses them trade conditions that the eU normally agrees to with states from outside Europe. The eU links this trade with potlical issues and fields that have nothign to do with trade in a bid to force their feet into the door again in the hope to break it wide open again later. The EU should be an economic cooperation union only, that was what the EEC was about. Today they cal themselves a community of values (whiole watering down these values by appeasement pokicy more and more and also actvely efusing to call their values they mean, and heir hisotrical roots, by their own names. I remind of the conflict abotuj even just the preambel of the dicate of Lisbon, where certain names and refernces to European history and Juaic-Christian cultural contexts were banned from being mentioned. It shoud not be like this. Own identity should not be up to negotiation, and trade should not be linked to demqanding that one can regulate the labour migration in the other'S country. These thigns have nothign to do with each other. also it is unacceptabl that a EU court that was called into existence to oversee that EU members follow their own internal EU rles and laws, shall have the right to govern intot he soveriengty of a nation that is no EU memeber at all. The eu has no problem to not do so with trade partners from abroad - but the UK is now to become the exception?



There sill is an underlying claim if Brussel for the UK. They do not accept their leave, and they do not plan to let them really go. That simpe it is. Its like with the Mafia. you do not leave the family - except with feet first.

This will happen when there is no deal. I take it those smaller countries will be really happy [/sarcasm] when England pulls that stunt.

You mean the net receivers are unlucky that one of their net payers refuses to feed them any longer? Dont worry, in the ECB panel of directors, the net payers have an always existing majority over the net payers, and an economical insignficant dwarf like Malta has the same power like the econimic heavyweight and most prominent financier of the E, Germany. And haven't they just decided to raise the eU budget anyway? The German government wastes the workers and employee'S stolen money for so many stdi things and the Germans like it, it doe snot matter that now we have to compnsate for theBritish absence as well. Its just stupid Gran money, so what is the problem? The Germans don't want it any different.

Now it is suddenly British territorial land, and the EU decides? Nope. It is not the EU that may erect any hard border between the Irelands, but Ireland and England. Alone. I wonder how Ireland thinks about what England wants.

Then fianlly accept, sinc eit was said severla time sby now, that the Northern Irelanders by huge majority wanted to stay in the UK, and in the EU, which is a contradicton. They cannot have both. It was the Northern Irish's decision, however.

You say the threat to leave NATO should not be taken too seriously? As for threatening to leave, i saw that coming since brexit. I just wonder what took them so long for this glorious idea. Maybe it is high time the EU rethinks its own military, if nations can just drop their commitment. Maybe the US is next, no one knows what can be expected from someone like Trump. Trust is being built in decades, but it takes months to destroy.

It takes two to ango, and if the EU jandles the ritish exit this brutally as we have seen so far, why shoudl the UK not be justified to pay back on equally brutla terms? The UK military is the most important one on the European continent, it has a global network of statiosn and bases, and the by far most capable intel apparatus in all Europe. Different to France the British nukes were fully committed to NATO defence and command, and the british still can maintain out of area operaiton on a scale where the French cannot compete with. All this gets so far underestmated inBrussel, and they think they an kick and bruise London without consequences. that is stupid. From a security standpoint, it is stupid to thorw the door into London's face lie this. Europe needs the British ilitary and inteol much,much more than the British military and intel needs that of Europe.



That I augh about the highflying plans for a European nified ilitary, is known by now.Natiosn that cannot even handle their own national defences and budgets, should be able to now finance even somethign bigger and more complex? BS. The experiences of insiders with the French-German brigae, teach some elssons. They are absolutely sobering.

Cordial relations are good and well, just what do you think the Europeans's reaction would be when England just breaks out of a union that had become self-evident for decades for young people, for science and trade? Sympathy? Cordial relations, well. Maybe in a few years when the next generation does not remember exactly what happened?

The Europeans have to learn that they may not be seen by others as the big shining saviors that they describe themselves as, usually. Take away the coluntariness in a relation and being-togather and you have everything taken aay already that is worth to be labelled as friendship. Force is force, nothing else.
There is no raosn why the eU and the UK should not be trading partners. The eu trades with many actors that are no EU members, without demanding them to obey EU interventions into their sovereingty. But with London they demand it? Why? Londown will not be EU memeber, so it falls not under EU legislation, end of message, live with it, period.


And if you piss this single actor too much, don'Ät be surorised that he may choose to show you a scnd stining finger then and withdrawing from the defenc eunion as well, telling you: your business, take care of it yourself, we're out of standign guard for you bullying us.

You are right with the backstop. The Irish border has been the problem from day one, and everyone knew and knows it. the EU has made it clear from day one: "The single market is our main economic public good. We will not damage it."

Northern Ireleand is part of the UK, and so a hard border between Northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland principally does not violate the EUs single market at all. The problem lies in the potential of armed conflict due to religious sentiments between the Irish people. This indeed is an issue the Irish have to solve indeed, mainly the Northern Irish, and also London, since NI is part of the UK. Regarding the single market alone, the thing is very clear: the border between the UK and the eU after Brexit is marked by the channel - and by the border between the rEpublic and Northern Ireland. Mind you once again: the Northern Irish, so said Jim some weeks ago again, said by huge majority they want to stay with the UK, like the Falklanders and the people in Gibraltar. It may look strange to the foreigner like me, but I accept their wish, how could I not? As part of the Uk, he Irish voted on brexit, and found that the referendum by majority nevertheless voted for Brexit. In principle, there again is nothing wrong. One could as well try to make it an issue that maybe a majority in the district of Soho or Wimbledon voted against brexit, and now demands that the referendum majoirty should be overturned on behalf of the minorit yloosing it, at leats that London shuld stay in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves. That makes no sense. and is against the intention and the rules of a democratic majority decision, btw. You do not let votes repat ntil you have whyt you want, becasue then someboy else has not what he wnats and demands it to b repated once again, an as often untl, he has what he wants. An you do not hold majority votes only to have minorities telling the majority what to do.