Brexit: Relations between Britain and the EU sink to a new low
54 replies, posted
[QUOTE]David Davis has been dragged into renewed war of words with Brussels over the Brexit transition period, accusing the EU of having a “fundamental contradiction” in its approach and wanting to “have it both ways” after a week of fruitless talks.
Relations between Britain and the European Commission sank to a new low on Friday after Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, casually claimed at a press conference the UK had cancelled an important meeting due to a “diary clash”. UK officials behind the scenes took offence to the claim and said the meeting had not been cancelled at all and instead took place in the afternoon.
Mr Barnier sealed the state of mutual incomprehension, telling reporters in Brussels that he had “problems understanding the UK’s position” on the transition period.
In a statement issued on Friday afternoon after Mr Barnier’s press conference – a solo affair in contrast to previous joint outings – Mr Davis said the EU could not “have it both ways” on the transition period.
“Given the intense work that has taken place this week it is surprising to hear that Michel Barnier is unclear on the UK’s position in relation to the implementation period,” he said. “As I set out in a speech two weeks ago, we are seeking a time-limited period that maintains access to each other’s markets on existing terms.
“However for any such period to work both sides will need a way to resolve disputes in the unlikely event that they occur.
“But there is a fundamental contradiction in the approach the commission is taking. Today they acknowledged that a way to resolve disputes and infringements is needed. Yet at the same time they dismissed the UK’s push for reasonable safeguards to ensure our interests are protected. It is not possible to have it both ways.
“We must not lose sight of the ultimate aim here – to build a new comprehensive partnership between the UK and the EU that sees us stay as the closest of friends and allies. It is in that spirit that the UK continues to approach negotiations with the Commission.”
The UK is at odds with Brussels in a number of areas: it has demanded a power to object to new rules imposed on it during the transition period, restrictions on the rights of EU citizens who come to Britain during the transition, and the ability to opt in to certain European policies.[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-david-davis-michel-barnier-eu-brussels-transition-period-a8203176.html[/URL]
tl;dr politics
[quote]David Davis has been dragged into renewed war of words with Brussels over the Brexit transition period, accusing the EU of having a “fundamental contradiction” in its approach and wanting to “have it both ways” after a week of fruitless talks.[/quote]
David Davis really needs to look up the dictionary definition for "irony". He'd find it enlightening, if the cretin could actually read, which at this point I very much fucking doubt.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;53120742]David Davis really needs to look up the dictionary definition for "irony". He'd find it enlightening, if the cretin could actually read, which at this point I very much fucking doubt.[/QUOTE]
If you've been following, the EU has been pushing for it to skip the ECJ and apply punishment or market withdrawal at will, it wants a trade deal with all the power on one side. It may be 'irony' in your eyes, but its time to get serious, and the EU isn't coming to the table.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53120755]If you've been following, the EU has been pushing for it to skip the ECJ and apply punishment or market withdrawal at will, it wants a trade deal with all the power on one side. It may be 'irony' in your eyes, but its time to get serious, and the EU isn't coming to the table.[/QUOTE]
The power [I]is[/I] on one side. Wasn't that always blatantly obvious? I mean, almost all of Europe, versus a small island? How is that result in any way surprising? AFAIK, Britain has been the ones who've been difficult in negotiations, not even having any sort of plan. Also, Britain is no longer part of the EU, so the ECJ shouldn't apply (correct me if I'm wrong), and of course it should have repercussions to leave the Union. It does not help that Britain is currently lead by a bunch of incompetent lemmings.
EDIT:
Not discussing any more Brexit with Boilrig, just my five cents on the matter.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53120755]If you've been following, the EU has been pushing for it to skip the ECJ and apply punishment or market withdrawal at will, it wants a trade deal with all the power on one side. It may be 'irony' in your eyes, but its time to get serious, and the EU isn't coming to the table.[/QUOTE]
So, mirroring the UK strategy, especially in the early days, where we were demanding powers and compensation (including absolution from outstanding to debt to the EU) far out of step from any kind of fair deal? And in fact, representing a "fundamental contradiction" and "wanting to have it both ways."
So, yes, [i]irony[/i]. You might want to look it up too, Boilrig. Clearly lost on yourself.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53120755]If you've been following, the EU has been pushing for it to skip the ECJ and apply punishment or market withdrawal at will, it wants a trade deal with all the power on one side. It may be 'irony' in your eyes, but its time to get serious, and the EU isn't coming to the table.[/QUOTE]
It's almost like your totally and actively being willfully ignorant of the deal that was in place before brexit
[QUOTE=torres;53120762]The power [I]is[/I] on one side. Wasn't that always blatantly obvious? I mean, almost all of Europe, versus a small island? How is that result in any way surprising?[/QUOTE]
Technically it isn't one sided, and to think that is willfully ignorant, the position that the EU is currently taking is impossible to sign, but if the EU wants both sides to feel pain, so be it. ([url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/09/30/there-are-no-winners-from-brexit-only-losers-say-university-researchers/#1d0ecba46aef[/url])
[QUOTE=torres;53120762]AFAIK, Britain has been the ones who've been difficult in negotiations, not even having any sort of plan.[/QUOTE]
You got a source for that?, or it that just along the lines of the piece in this article about the EU claiming important meetings not taking place at the fault of the UK and the UK replying they instead took place in the afternoon. Yanis Varoufakis, explained this tactic very clearly when he took part in negoiations with the EU as Greece's Finance Minister ([URL]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/the-six-brexit-traps-that-will-defeat-theresa-may[/URL]).
[QUOTE=torres;53120762]
Also, Britain is no longer part of the EU, so the ECJ shouldn't apply (correct me if I'm wrong), and of course it should have repercussions to leave the Union. [/QUOTE]
The EU's first offer was ECJ to oversee trade disputes, but the UK rejected that as they wouldn't be in the Union. Instead offered how normal trade deals are disputed, and that is by third party judges from other countries. But obviously the EU counter-offered that the UK has no rights in trade disputes ([URL]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/08/david-davis-eu-bad-faith-punish-brexit[/URL]).
[QUOTE=torres;53120762]
It does not help that Britain is currently lead by a bunch of incompetent lemmings.[/QUOTE]
Democratically elected.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;53120769]So, mirroring the UK strategy, especially in the early days, where we were demanding powers and compensation (including absolution from outstanding to debt to the EU) far out of step from any kind of fair deal? And in fact, representing a "fundamental contradiction" and "wanting to have it both ways."
So, yes, [I]irony[/I]. You might want to look it up too, Boilrig. Clearly lost on yourself.[/QUOTE]
The part surrounding the EU's debt to the UK was ignored by both sides as the UK had a claim on the money it had put into the EU's assets.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120770]It's almost like your totally and actively being willfully ignorant of the deal that was in place before brexit[/QUOTE]
The deal before basically becomes irrelevant the day the UK public voted to leave the EU. The UK is trying to preserve some of the good parts of the deal, as is the EU, but obviously its come to a stalemate.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121001]Democratically elected.[/QUOTE]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I]Not really[/url], but I wouldn't get my hopes up on you acknowledging that considering you thoroughly ignored that the last time I mentioned that.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53121015][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I]Not really[/url], but I wouldn't get my hopes up on you acknowledging that considering you thoroughly ignored that the last time I mentioned that.[/QUOTE]
'Not really', well, that is still democratically elected, maybe it would be better spending the money on a referendum for moving to MMP or something rather than a 2nd Brexit referendum.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121001]Democratically elected.[/QUOTE]
i ill see the relevance of this comment to the assertion that they are a bunch of incompetent lemmings
If by "democratic election" you mean a minority of voters wielding all of the political power then sure I guess. You're stretching the definition of democracy so far that it ends up being contradictory though, it's certainly not a process I'd call democratic. And when a party which has the game rigged in their favor has to ally with literal terrorists to reach a majority I certainly wouldn't call them legitimate.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53121065]If by "democratic election" you mean a minority of voters wielding all of the political power then sure I guess. You're stretching the definition of democracy so far that it ends up being contradictory though, it's certainly not a process I'd call democratic. And when a party which has the game rigged in their favor has to ally with literal terrorists to reach a majority I certainly wouldn't call them legitimate.[/QUOTE]
I'm not stretching the definition of democracy, this is simply a voting style that you believe is undemocratic and it involves a party you consider terrorists and are somehow not legitimate. But if you've got a source outlining a world power claiming the UK's election style and results are illegitimate, I invite you to share that.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121090]I'm not stretching the definition of democracy, this is simply a voting style that you believe is undemocratic and it involves a party you consider terrorists and are somehow not legitimate. But if you've got a source outlining a world power claiming the UK's election style and results are illegitimate, I invite you to share that.[/QUOTE]
The UK itself has called for it to reconsider it's actions. Something you have stated is an affront to democracy and a disgrace. Do you understand how impossible you have made it to even discuss this with you when you are making claims and statements that directly contradict the very idea of democracy just because you fucking say so?
[QUOTE]The deal before basically becomes irrelevant the day the UK public voted to leave the EU. The UK is trying to preserve some of the good parts of the deal, as is the EU, but obviously its come to a stalemate. [/QUOTE]
So you basically show your hand here. You keep pushing for a version of this deal that best suits the UK, and not the EU. The UK does not have leverage. They had leverage when the EU was established, by voting to leave, and try to get a better deal with no real leverage, they have utterly fucked themselves and this is a reality that you have had explained to you so many times I'm sure you literally don't even read it anymore, if you ever did. You demanding that EU take a bad deal because Brexit was in fact a bad economic move on all fronts(despite all your claims about the empire of brittania succeeding on her own) is just you being unable to accept that this isn't going to play out like how you predicted.
Your assumptions were wrong. Your not basing any of your views about this in reality and instead just resort to calling everyone else an undemocratic loon. You're actual honest to god stated position is that once a decision has been made via referendum, it's permanent. It's nonsense and if you stayed in a thread long enough to actually argue before leaving you'd quickly realize this for yourself.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53121099]The UK itself has called for it to reconsider it's actions. Something you have stated is an affront to democracy and a disgrace. Do you understand how impossible you have made it to even discuss this with you when you are making claims and statements that directly contradict the very idea of democracy just because you fucking say so? The UK does not have leverage.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about referendums in this thread, the question was about the UK's voting FPTP vs any other option.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53121099]
So you basically show your hand here. You keep pushing for a version of this deal that best suits the UK, and not the EU.
[/QUOTE]
I'm pushing for a version of the deal that best suits both sides or have you forgotten that free trade is based on being mutually beneficial.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53121099]
The UK does not have leverage.
[/QUOTE]
If that was the case, there would be no need for negotiation, however the EU is keen for meetings to go ahead because they are the ones complaining about the UK not turning up when in fact the meeting was held in the afternoon. So clearly the EU are keen to negotiate and therefore must not hold absolute leverage.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53121099]
They had leverage when the EU was established, by voting to leave, and try to get a better deal with no real leverage, they have utterly fucked themselves and this is a reality that you have had explained to you so many times I'm sure you literally don't even read it anymore, if you ever did. [/QUOTE]
The UK was never fully committed to the EU, not in the sense of Germany or France. But the EU accepted their position and the reasons for it. The UK is trying to get a deal minimise the damage of Brexit, what they also want is fair and legal recourse for future disputes in line with what other countries have negotiated with the EU.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53121099]
You demanding that EU take a bad deal because Brexit was in fact a bad economic move on all fronts(despite all your claims about the empire of brittania succeeding on her own) is just you being unable to accept that this isn't going to play out like how you predicted. [/QUOTE]
I haven't actually demanded the EU take a bad deal, there will be losses on bad side, they may both be economically disadvantaged in the short term, but the whole purpose of trade negotiations is that all parties gain more than if a deal was not struck.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53121099]
Your assumptions were wrong. Your not basing any of your views about this in reality and instead just resort to calling everyone else an undemocratic loon. You're actual honest to god stated position is that once a decision has been made via referendum, it's permanent. It's nonsense and if you stayed in a thread long enough to actually argue before leaving you'd quickly realize this for yourself.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about referendums in this thread, the question was about the UK's voting FPTP vs any other option.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121090]I'm not stretching the definition of democracy, this is simply a voting style that you believe is undemocratic and it involves a party you consider terrorists and are somehow not legitimate. But if you've got a source outlining a world power claiming the UK's election style and results are illegitimate, I invite you to share that.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of [I]belief[/I], it is undemocratic [I]by definition[/I]. See, that's the exact same bullshit you resorted to in the last thread, that somehow giving power to a minority of voters doesn't lessen the democratic status of a country in the slightest. Meanwhile, you claim that ignoring a referendum that was won by a [I]measly 2%[/I] would be utterly undemocratic. So not only do you foolishly claim that whether such a shit voting system is undemocratic is a matter of opinion, but [I]you're not even consistent with your own beliefs.[/I] You pick and choose your beliefs about what democracy means depending on whether it supports your political views.
[quote]wanting to “have it both ways” after a week of fruitless talks.[/quote]
Which is not at all what the UK has been doing so far, right?
Dumb fucking cunt.
please stop arguing with boilrig, he's an idiot
David Davies saying the EU wants to have it both ways? As if the UK arent trying to have their cake and eat it? Why the fuck aren't we protesting more about this shitshow
[QUOTE=_Axel;53121718]It's not a matter of [I]belief[/I], it is undemocratic [I]by definition[/I]. See, that's the exact same bullshit you resorted to in the last thread, that somehow giving power to a minority of voters doesn't lessen the democratic status of a country in the slightest. Meanwhile, you claim that ignoring a referendum that was won by a [I]measly 2%[/I] would be utterly undemocratic. So not only do you foolishly claim that whether such a shit voting system is undemocratic is a matter of opinion, but [I]you're not even consistent with your own beliefs.[/I] You pick and choose your beliefs about what democracy means depending on whether it supports your political views.[/QUOTE]
If you want to mix up your belief I somehow like your current voting style and the referendum debate, go right ahead. On the topic of the FPTP voting style, you've offered nothing, not even the definition you speak of as to how the UK is undemocratic.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;53121738]please stop arguing with boilrig, he's an idiot
David Davies saying the EU wants to have it both ways? As if the UK arent trying to have their cake and eat it? Why the fuck aren't we protesting more about this shitshow[/QUOTE]I would get annoyed by it if the British government hadn't been so comically incompetent throughout all this e.g. showing up to meetings with EU leaders not having sorted out their [I]own[/I] government's position.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121747]If you want to mix up your belief I somehow like your current voting style and the referendum debate, go right ahead. On the topic of the FPTP voting style, you've offered nothing, not even the definition you speak of as to how the UK is undemocratic.[/QUOTE]
FPTP in the UK is awful because the correlation between the popular vote and actual representation in parliament is hilariously bad. I think Axel simply thought that so obvious that he wouldn't even mention it.
Things are starting to look really bad for the Tories (I think they can't get any worse for the actual country) because their Brexit gang is now going for full anti-democracy now, holding the Prime Minister's position to ransom. However, they don't even nearly represent the majority of the party. Brexit is actually now threatening to split both Labour and the Conservatives. Unfortunately with FPTP voting that can only be bad for the stability of our country resulting in permanent minority governments.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121747]If you want to mix up your belief I somehow like your current voting style and the referendum debate, go right ahead. On the topic of the FPTP voting style, you've offered nothing, not even the definition you speak of as to how the UK is undemocratic.[/QUOTE]
yo we literally get taught in high school about all the negatives of FPTP as an electorate system, don't start chatting shit about how FPTP is flawless and great, it is objectively a flawed system that, whilst it does act as a good blockade against smaller extremist parties, is not a fair or representative system at all. There's a reason why there is considerable support to change our voting system to something like PR or STV
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;53121788]yo we literally get taught in high school about all the negatives of FPTP as an electorate system, don't start chatting shit about how FPTP is flawless and great, it is objectively a flawed system that, whilst it does act as a good blockade against smaller extremist parties, is not a fair or representative system at all. There's a reason why there is considerable support to change our voting system to something like PR or STV[/QUOTE]
I don't believe I've ever sided with FPTP, since I enjoy MMP where I live, I just believe it is disingenuous to say FPTP makes the UK undemocratic, when its just a way of counting votes for representative democracy.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121801]I don't believe I've ever sided with FPTP, since I enjoy MMP where I live, I just believe it is disingenuous to say FPTP makes the UK undemocratic, when its just a way of counting votes for representative democracy.[/QUOTE]
If that is so, how exactly is ignoring a referendum that a slight majority won undemocratic?
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121801]I don't believe I've ever sided with FPTP, since I enjoy MMP where I live, I just believe it is disingenuous to say FPTP makes the UK undemocratic, when its just a way of counting votes for representative democracy.[/QUOTE]
but the point is FPTP is objectively not fairly representative, case closed. Parties get through FPTP without getting the majority vote most of the time which is clearly not representative.
[QUOTE=_Axel;53121848]If that is so, how exactly is ignoring a referendum that a slight majority won undemocratic?[/QUOTE]
How exactly is asking for a 2nd referendum to override a previous referendum democratic?
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;53121879]but the point is FPTP is objectively not fairly representative, case closed. Parties get through FPTP without getting the majority vote most of the time which is clearly not representative.[/QUOTE]
FPTP has its issues, but it remains representative, moving to something like MMP which is most likely the case for the UK, won't solve those issues magically especially in regards to majority voting.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121893]How exactly is asking for a 2nd referendum to override a previous referendum democratic?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, is that an answer to my question?
[QUOTE=Boilrig;53121001]
Democratically elected.
[/QUOTE]
"But democracy" isn't the ultimate winning argument that you seem to think it is.
He said the current UK government are incompetent, as someone who is actually native to the UK , I'm inclined to agree with him. "Okay but they got elected so they aren't bad" is an utterly idiotic line of reasoning.
I find it somewhat amusing that your retort to the Tories being called lemmings, is to argue that lots of other people think a certain way so it's obviously wise to just follow along with them.
Boilrig, what is your agenda anyway?
You come from NZ, yet so keen to go full "Brexit means Brexit!!!!" with no apparent reason, while outright failing or denying yourself to understand why UK is in the wrong here, getting assfucked sideways from both government and EU while the middle men, the citizens, are to suffer any consequence which isn't to stop leaving the EU.
Why are you so keen on UK to get fucked hard? You show clearly that you have no morals over this matter, so why trying to bait everyone into pointless arguments with you where you simply do not want to listen other than annoy people with your actions which make absolutely 0 sense?
[QUOTE]
How exactly is asking for a 2nd referendum to override a previous referendum democratic?[/QUOTE]
How exactly do you even function in society when you cannot comprehend such basic principles?
Let me explain: You legit do not understand that when the referendum,
[I]which is, remind you, legally non-binding (means it was just to get a grasp of what public wants, not for public to decide the 100% of outcome)[/I]
had a 52-48% split of votes,
[I]which does not clearly show a definite majority[/I]
, then it is exactly the problem here - the outcome, on which the decision was taken, is undemocratic in itself?
52-48% split means the public is definitely unsure of what the fuck is happening. Imagine you give out an opinion on something - the 50% is within margins of "neither agree nor disagree, neutral", whereas if we had, for example, a 70-30 split, then it would've been within the margins of "agree" (where 100 is probably "absolutely agree").
Government going through with results 52-48% is undemocratic because it is not a definite answer on which you should base critical decisions. Having a 2nd referendum, is, on the contrary, the most democratic thing that could happen right now in UK. The fact that you fail to understand this or that you are trying to keep the moral high ground by sticking to the book definitions does not change shit. The world, just like forms of government, are not black and white binary things, but a specter of infinitely many variables going around the country.
on the topic of a 2nd referendum, the Leavers said that, if they lost, "the battle would not be over" implying that they themselves would've pushed for a 2nd referendum. however, since they won the decision was "final and unanimous" and everyone who voted Remain needs to shut up, boot up and get behind the Leave vote
ultimately the blame for this entire mess lies on the Tories because they did the absolute rookie mistake and forgot to write in an escape clause
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.