EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Franconicus]

Before BREXIT will come there will - without any doubt - be long expensive negotiations. We, taxpayers from the European Union (and until the end of the negs that includes our friends on the islands) will have to pay for it. So best we can do is lay back and enjoy the spectacle.

What do you guess, how will the negotiations be running? What will be the results?

[Sarmatian]

EU holds the stronger hand. The only way UK comes out with a better deal than it has is if EU is on its way to total dissolution, in which case it will matter only for a very short time.

[Sarmatian]

The real practical threat is that, after an agreement has been made with the EU delegates, when it comes to ratifying the agreement, Spain will say No. And despite PFH's criticisms of the EU lacking democratic accountability, the EU as a body is subject to numerous vetoes, one for each member state. As Canada has found out, if one member says No, the EU as a body says No. And the default persists until an agreement is reached. In the face of this, the UK can't exactly threaten war, and it has far too little leverage for economic war.

I wouldn't compare the two situations, although legally you're right. Spain could veto any deal if it doesn't include Gibraltar. But, unlike Canada and Belgium example, this has nothing to do with EU. It's an issue between Spain and UK and should be dealt with bilaterally.

I don't think other EU members would be too pleased if Spain tried to abuse EU for its own goals.

[Greyblades]

I am not very familiar with the people living at Gibraltar. However, what I heard is that most of them voted against the BREXIT and are afraid of it. I assume all they want is to live at Gibraltar and have good relations to the UK and Spain. Caused by the BREXIT, there will be a frontier to Spain. I doubt that the Gibraltarians really want to be defended in a war UK against Spain. Neither do they want to move to the UK (or they would have done already). Gibraltar is one of the losers of the BREXIT.

Gibraltar was given the opportunity to become spanish a decade ago and 99% said they wanted to be british. Unlike the tantrum class of university students and guardian collumn writers I do not for a second believe the gibraltans would forsake their country over brexit.

[Beskar]

UK copies EU law into its own which it is doing. Assurances on EU citizens in UK and vice versa. Visa free travel between the two. A free trade deal of some kind or temporary extension of single market till one is finalised. A lot of hot air and blustering.

[Greyblades]

I disagree with Samaritan.

Britain has the greater hand; the market of britain is highly valuable to north european manufacturers and london is currently the only city in europe with the infrastructure to support the financial sector it currently holds. Businesses want the economic status quo to be maintained because to do otherwise would require long, painful,damaging and costly adjustment.

Combine that pressure on the EU from their own businesses with the mandate of brexit putting the political gun to May's head, the only side that has both the impetus and the means to give significant ground in this contest is the EU.

[Franconicus]

I disagree with Greyblades. :laugh4:

The market of GB is interesting, but the EU has a bigger market.
And yes, business wants things to keep on running without any hurdles. So all regulations should be adjusted between the nations, there should be common standards, common currency, free mobility etc. Ooops, I forgot, the Brits do not want to have that any longer. So there will be an agreement without all of that.

Thinking that London is so unique that Europe depends on it can be a dangerous thought. Several EU cities are currently working to get the heritage of London. The finance market is not Britain's pledge to get access to the free market, it is the prey for those who remain in the EU.

May is in a very uncomfortable situation. There is the gun at her head created by the BREXIT mandate. But there is also the issue of Ireland (cannot imagine how they will find a solution there), Scotland, Gibraltar, the finance market etc. Impossible for me to see how she could find a solution for all these problems.

And of course there are the expectations and needs of the Brits. From what I have read, it seems to me that they are a bit emotionally. On one hand they think that nothings really changes, the same advantages for the economy just without foreigners and without EU administration and without payment to Brussels. On the other hand, they fear that EU wants to punish them.
Both views are unrealistic. Britain leaves the Union because it wants to make the best policy for its own people. The EU has the same mandate for the Europeans. So I expect that they are trying to get the best conditions for Europe just as the British are trying to get the best result for the UK. In the end I guess the bigger party will get the bigger piece of cake; that's how it always is. Small countries cannot compete with big ones.

By the way, do you remember that the Switzerland had a mandate to limit the free mobility of EU citizens in Switzerland? :crazy:

[Fragony]

It's the comfortable bliss of eurocrats that is under attack. Eurocrats canlt look beyond their precious protectorate but they are in fact isolating themselve. It's going to be a nice sunny day when more people realise that the EU is a useless ultra-undemocratic bureaucratic hindrance and nothing more.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Financial infrastructure matters, but it is more a question of electronics and computer security than of vaults and transportation hubs. London is the lead by legacy and the comfort of familiarity -- but I don't doubt the ability of Luzerne, Berlin or The Hague to step up.


UK needs to negotiate an exit deal that -- as closely as possible -- allows them to mimic EEC-style membership without the rest of the political oversight on other planes. Be interesting to see if they can do so.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That will be suicidal. NATO would have the obligation to nuke UK.
And France being part of NATO and a Nuclear Weapons owner would be obliged to use them against UK, so at the end having 2 neighbours transformed in ashes, radioactives ones..:yes:

Even if Spain had invaded and attempted to annex Gibraltar, prior to any military action by the UK?

[Pannonian]

It's the comfortable bliss of eurocrats that is under attack. Eurocrats canlt look beyond their precious protectorate but they are in fact isolating themselve. It's going to be a nice sunny day when more people realise that the EU is a useless ultra-undemocratic bureaucratic hindrance and nothing more.

Most of the uselessness and bureaucratic hindrance is due to the democratic checks. That you lump all these things together shows just how devoid of logic you are on this subject. Still, Gibraltar would be a small price to pay for freedom, in your opinion.

[Franconicus]

Most of the uselessness and bureaucratic hindrance is due to the democratic checks. That you lump all these things together shows just how devoid of logic you are on this subject. Still, Gibraltar would be a small price to pay for freedom, in your opinion.

I agree with your opinion about bureaucracy, but Gibraltar?
I think the rock is a national issue for both, Britain and Spain; therefore, no side will draw back. The people living a Gib, if memory serves in 2002 more than 90 per cent wanted to remain British instead of becoming Spaniards. At the Brexit poll 90 per cent voted for staying in Europe.
I do not see any simple solution for this. The EU deescalated the problem, as the people could be British and European at the same time. Now these days are coming to an end. There will be a hard border between Gib. and Spain.
There is no easy solution. Giving Gib. to Spain is most likely not what the people want. Remaining at a Britain outside of Europe either.

Similar but even worse is what I assume for Ireland. How can there be the border between the EU and Ireland, which is for the Brits so important to control, without dividing the two Irelands and causing more trouble.
Does anybody have a good proposal?

Maybe Baskar is right and the British choose the Swiss solution.

[Franconicus]

Gibraltar was given the opportunity to become spanish a decade ago and 99% said they wanted to be british. Unlike the tantrum class of university students and guardian collumn writers I do not for a second believe the gibraltans would forsake their country over brexit.

That was in 2002, right?
In 2016, over 90 % wanted to stay in the EU.

[Tristuskhan]

As a citizen of one of those countries that are still inside EU, and having no opinion about Brexit I'd say:



Assurances on EU citizens in UK and vice versa.
F*** you, you're out!


Visa free travel between the two.
P**s off, you're out. If Brits gain that I hope France, Greece and Italy will give refugees their citizenship so that they can, as EU citizens, fulfill their dream of UK, with no visa.


A free trade deal of some kind or temporary extension of single market till one is finalised.
You are O-U-T! Be proud and don't beg.


A lot of hot air and blustering.
I did my part....

[Kagemusha]

I think this whole Gibraltar issue is just the first negotiation move from EU side. They wanted to see British reaction to a provocation and they got an emotional response, which i think they were hoping for.

Based on this, the reaction to EU's support for possibly independent Scotland staying in EU after breaking off from Britain, should be devastating. It is just a shame that European politics are turning like this once again. I would rather that the democratic West would just get along.

[Pannonian]

I agree with your opinion about bureaucracy, but Gibraltar?
I think the rock is a national issue for both, Britain and Spain; therefore, no side will draw back. The people living a Gib, if memory serves in 2002 more than 90 per cent wanted to remain British instead of becoming Spaniards. At the Brexit poll 90 per cent voted for staying in Europe.
I do not see any simple solution for this. The EU deescalated the problem, as the people could be British and European at the same time. Now these days are coming to an end. There will be a hard border between Gib. and Spain.
There is no easy solution. Giving Gib. to Spain is most likely not what the people want. Remaining at a Britain outside of Europe either.

Similar but even worse is what I assume for Ireland. How can there be the border between the EU and Ireland, which is for the Brits so important to control, without dividing the two Irelands and causing more trouble.
Does anybody have a good proposal?

Maybe Baskar is right and the British choose the Swiss solution.

Thus said our most vocal supporter of Brexit.


Giving up Gibraltar is a small price to pay, nothing is going to really change except cutting of a human traffic route, 'refugees' are Spain's problem if it's Spanish territory, pure win if you look at it pragmatically

It's all a game and giving up Gilbraltar would be a queen-sacrifice

It's perfect, you gave up a disputed territory, you would have done enough to feed the wolves, stfu very please what more do you want???? Forces in the EU want to punish you brits you know that, they don't want other net-payers to stop paying their comfortable bliss

[Greyblades]

Interesting idea, I would say that if true it is going to backfire; the biggest wet blanket on the idea of scottish retaining the EU is the veto of spain, if anything showing how easily and even frivelously spain is willing to use that veto will more likely discourage the idea that spain can be bargained with.
That was in 2002, right?
In 2016, over 90 % wanted to stay in the EU.

Doesnt translate. Posessing a desire for EU membership does not require a desire for seperatism let alone repatriation.

[Kagemusha]

Interesting idea, I would say that if true it is going to backfire; the biggest wet blanket on the idea of scottish retaining the EU is the veto of spain, if anything showing how easily and even frivelously spain is willing to use that veto will more likely discourage the idea that spain can be bargained with.

Doesnt translate. Posessing a desire for EU membership does not require a desire for seperatism let alone repatriation.

Apparently Spain has already commented, that while they do not want to see the disintegration of GB, they would not veto independent Scotland's application to EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-foreign-minister-alfonso-dastis-no-veto-independent-scotland-eu-membership-application-a7662531.html

[Pannonian]

Apparently Spain has already commented, that while they do not want to see the disintegration of GB, they would not veto independent Scotland's application to EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-foreign-minister-alfonso-dastis-no-veto-independent-scotland-eu-membership-application-a7662531.html

Aka an independent Gibraltar may apply for EU membership. The EU can screw the UK over in any number of ways within international norms.

[Sarmatian]

Apparently Spain has already commented, that while they do not want to see the disintegration of GB, they would not veto independent Scotland's application to EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-foreign-minister-alfonso-dastis-no-veto-independent-scotland-eu-membership-application-a7662531.html

Spain only has issues with Scotland getting EU membership automatically, worrying that it might encourage some of its own separatist movements.

Spain never said it would block Scotland from EU, only that Scotland would have to apply for membership upon independence, like all other non EU countries.

[Greyblades]

I disagree with Greyblades. :laugh4:

The market of GB is interesting, but the EU has a bigger market. And? The point is that the loss of custom from losing access to a market of rich buyers they have become accustomed to profiting off is something businesses absolutely do not want. Playing who has the bigger market doesnt change that.

And yes, business wants things to keep on running without any hurdles. So all regulations should be adjusted between the nations, there should be common standards, common currency, free mobility etc. Ooops, I forgot, the Brits do not want to have that any longer. So there will be an agreement without all of that. ...what is this drivel?

Thinking that London is so unique that Europe depends on it can be a dangerous thought. Several EU cities are currently working to get the heritage of London. The finance market is not Britain's pledge to get access to the free market, it is the prey for those who remain in the EU. Those several cities will take a lot of money and a lot of time to become a replacement for London. Time is money lost and investment would be at risk of being made worthless through a deal.


May is in a very uncomfortable situation. There is the gun at her head created by the BREXIT mandate. But there is also the issue of Ireland (cannot imagine how they will find a solution there), Scotland, Gibraltar, the finance market etc. Impossible for me to see how she could find a solution for all these problems. As a politician all she need care about is being reelected and the greatest portion of her electoral support comes from brexiters. She will never be reelected by them if she settles for a raw deal and she will never get enough european sympathetics to vote for her to make up the loss.

She has three choices: all, nothing or retirement. Merkel on the other hand has much less to lose if she capitulates.


And of course there are the expectations and needs of the Brits. From what I have read, it seems to me that they are a bit emotionally. On one hand they think that nothings really changes, the same advantages for the economy just without foreigners and without EU administration and without payment to Brussels. On the other hand, they fear that EU wants to punish them.
Both views are unrealistic. Britain leaves the Union because it wants to make the best policy for its own people. The EU has the same mandate for the Europeans. So I expect that they are trying to get the best conditions for Europe just as the British are trying to get the best result for the UK. In the end I guess the bigger party will get the bigger piece of cake; that's how it always is. Small countries cannot compete with big ones.You've forgotten what nations are for and are deluded about what the EU does.

You sound like Verhofstadt.


By the way, do you remember that the Switzerland had a mandate to limit the free mobility of EU citizens in Switzerland? :crazy:
I remember, I also remember what you did to greece. We're not greece.

The EU has become a thug.

Britain doesnt bow to thugs.

[Greyblades]

I am not convinced they are not just saying it; it is not wise for a nation to enable it's ally's seperatists while your own are straining at the leash.
Especially when they have thier eyes on gibraltar; To say anything that would weaken the UK's position seems logical at this point, to mean what they say is another matter.

The chances of scotland meeting entry requirements to getting into the EU soon after separation are low, and spain isnt going to give them the easy ride the eastern nations had.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They can just move to the UK before Spain takes over. There's no need to abandon them.

No, not really.


I am not very familiar with the people living at Gibraltar. However, what I heard is that most of them voted against the BREXIT and are afraid of it. I assume all they want is to live at Gibraltar and have good relations to the UK and Spain. Caused by the BREXIT, there will be a frontier to Spain. I doubt that the Gibraltarians really want to be defended in a war UK against Spain. Neither do they want to move to the UK (or they would have done already). Gibraltar is one of the losers of the BREXIT.

The Gibraltarians are British, but they not English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Irish. There is, in fact, already a frontier with Spain - one the Spanish choked off a few years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24954881

Yes, the Gibraltarians wanted to remain in the EU, but more than that they emphatically want to be British.


I think this whole Gibraltar issue is just the first negotiation move from EU side. They wanted to see British reaction to a provocation and they got an emotional response, which i think they were hoping for.

Based on this, the reaction to EU's support for possibly independent Scotland staying in EU after breaking off from Britain, should be devastating. It is just a shame that European politics are turning like this once again. I would rather that the democratic West would just get along.

If you expect support for an Independent Scotland joining the EU to provoke a more violent reaction than the issue of Gibraltar you have sadly missed the point. If the Scots wish to leave, let them leave - if they wish to join the EU let them.

This is about the right of our people to choose - not about what they choose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with your opinion about bureaucracy, but Gibraltar?
I think the rock is a national issue for both, Britain and Spain; therefore, no side will draw back. The people living a Gib, if memory serves in 2002 more than 90 per cent wanted to remain British instead of becoming Spaniards. At the Brexit poll 90 per cent voted for staying in Europe.
I do not see any simple solution for this. The EU deescalated the problem, as the people could be British and European at the same time. Now these days are coming to an end. There will be a hard border between Gib. and Spain.
There is no easy solution. Giving Gib. to Spain is most likely not what the people want. Remaining at a Britain outside of Europe either.

Similar but even worse is what I assume for Ireland. How can there be the border between the EU and Ireland, which is for the Brits so important to control, without dividing the two Irelands and causing more trouble.
Does anybody have a good proposal?

Maybe Baskar is right and the British choose the Swiss solution.

It was 99% in favour of remaining British and we already have a "hard border" with Spain there. A border that became very hard in 2013.

As to what will happen - increasingly it looks like there will be no deal, not in two years. We might be able to settle some things like citizen's rights, maybe the exit bill, we may be able to avoid crashing out of the single market but there will be no comprehensive deal. The Reprehensible manoeuvring over Gibraltar has demonstrated the EU will not negotiate in good faith and when negotiations get under way this is what the British diplomats will have uppermost in their minds.

[Beskar]

As for Ireland. The unionists no longer have a majority. Anything dumb on Britains part will result in a referendum which could see unification with the South. If Britain is smart, it will have a special relationship with the South which puts the border at the ocean, not at the land, which gives NI unofficial membership of the EU in all but name. As it will keep its free movement of people and goods with the South.

[Gilrandir]

It's going to be a nice sunny day when more people realise that the EU is a useless ultra-undemocratic bureaucratic hindrance and nothing more.

Then people in GB are never gonna realise it since there are no sunny days in Britain.

[Gilrandir]

The people living a Gib, if memory serves in 2002 more than 90 per cent wanted to remain British instead of becoming Spaniards. At the Brexit poll 90 per cent voted for staying in Europe.


Then one more referendum just for Gibraltar should be held where people will have to choose whether they want to stay British but outside the EU or they want to stay within the EU but stop being British.




The EU has become a thug.

Britain doesnt bow to thugs.

It doesn't, it sometimes salutes them:
19584
19585

[Idaho]

I remember, I also remember what you did to greece. We're not greece.

The EU has become a thug.

Britain doesnt bow to thugs.

What *he* did to Greece?

This is strident sounding nonsense. Bluster and stupidity. Sounds like the kind of drivel that May has been coming out with.

[Kagemusha]

Here is one issue, that have not yet gained much attention:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/04/uk-jobs-merkel-juncker-euro-clearing-eu-manfred-weber-brexit

It would seem that EU is not going to leave Euro Clearing to London after Brexit, which is going to hit the British financial sector pretty hard. Maybe it will move to Amsterdam, interesting to see what Frag´s says if it does.

[Franconicus]

Does anybody know what the regulations between Europe and UK were before UK asked to be allowed to join? Even though things changed since then and the EU became more important, it may be a good and rather realistic starting point to go back where it all began.

Then all joined programs like research, student exchanges, etc. could be stopped, I think that could be done pretty quickly. Then both sides agree to accept that people from the other party are allowed to stay, but no new ones ought to come. Then we should have a pretty fast exit without wasting time and money with negotiations. And after this we could think about what could become better, where both sides want to cooperate - standards for cars for example.
What a smart plan. I should become politician.


I was thinking about Greyblade's argument that the European industry wants to have access to Britain's market. And I wonder if this is not just wishful thinking.
What would happen if there would not be any agreement on trade? The UK would introduce custom fees for cars, for example, the EU would do the same for British cars. So manufacturers on the islands would have a benefit in the UK, but a drawback on the continent and vice versa. I assume that Toyota and Ford sell much more cars on the continent than in the UK, so they will likely transfer their production to the continent, to avoid the disadvantages. In the end, all cars to Britain would be imported, either from the US or Europe. Buyers in the UK would have to pay higher prices caused by transport costs and fees. There would be more cars produced at Europe. Maybe I forgot something but I cannot see what is the strong position created by the UK market.

Same, maybe even worse, is the finance market. Greyblade claims that Europe depends on London. Now we all had to learn how easy it is to transfer industrial production to a foreign country. I do not see why this should be more complicated with finance. London did not become the finance centre it is because the English are so excellent mathematicians but because the government did a lot to create a perfect environment. Now with the Brexit the situation change fundamentally. Environment is not so good anymore.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would vote that we close this thread and move efforts to the exit thread.

[Furunculus]

The UK is not threatening war - the UK is merely making it clear that it will not compromise on Gibraltar and sell its people out, even in the face of military action. It shouldn't need to be said, it should be taken as read, but better to say it now than in 18 months time.

agreed.

many feel the falklands conflict was at its heart a failure of communication; in that our gov't by both military commitment/capability and diplomatic prevarication lead Argentina to [believe] that taking the falklands was a gamble it could win.

they could not win that gamble, as history proved, but the failure was ours in letting them believe in that foolish possibility.

let there be no such miscommunication in future, eh. ;)

[Furunculus]

Here is one issue, that have not yet gained much attention:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/04/uk-jobs-merkel-juncker-euro-clearing-eu-manfred-weber-brexit

It would seem that EU is not going to leave Euro Clearing to London after Brexit, which is going to hit the British financial sector pretty hard. Maybe it will move to Amsterdam, interesting to see what Frag´s says if it does.

the EU wants the euro to become a reserve currency, but doesn't want it to be traded 'overseas'...

i don't buy it!

[Furunculus]

what do i think:

1. We'll make permanent the status of EU migrants in respective countries.
> Something equivalent to an automatic declaration of permanent residency for eu citizens who've been in-country for more than five years.
> The automatic right to stay in-country and achieve the five year permanent residency under the old regime if you arrived prior to Art50.
> The qualified right to achieve five year permanent residency under the stricter non-eu regime as per the RoW if you arrived after Art50.

2. The Brexit bill will end up being counted in the single figure billions once debts and assets are divvied up.
> I doubt there will even be a payment for the balance as such, it will simply be massaged into long term transfers and interest payments.
> We'll not pull out our 'investment' in the EIB.
> We'll pay our dues, because that is what we do. Simply that the dues agreed won't be as apocalyptic as some imagine.

3. The EU:Ukraine DCFTA will be the template upon which the free-trade agreement is built.
> It is purpose designed for an 'association' state, not an accession state. Which is exactly what we'll be.
> The Services section (chapter 6) will be arbitrated under a joint panel, not the ECJ as is the case with Ukraine.
> There will be fewer exceptions in the negative list of reserved areas than is the case with Ukraine.

4. The UK will remain outside the EEA (obviously, given the above), and thus removed from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ.
> There is no way the UK is being a rule-taker across broad swathes of its economy. The model will be equivalence.
> That said, I've little doubt there will be areas where equivalence is not available, and a limited sector based passport is agreed.
> Further, that there will remain some limited areas of legislation where it is sensible to remain under EU regulation (and thus the ECJ). Fine.

5. That we will remain outside [the] customs union and free to conclude our own trade agreements.
> Having said that specific integrated supply chains will be included in the envelope of [a] customs union.
> We will quickly pickup existing eu trade agreements, because we are willing to provide better terms (fewer protected areas).
> Individual FTA's with Canada, Oz and Nz will eventually become a CANZUK trade zone.

6. Security cooperation will be maintained, and in fact deepen in some areas.
> We will have a formal agreement for participation in the nordic defense union, as well as the Visegrad group.
> We'll keep on providing a security guarentee to europe, as well as supplying intelligence, and europe will continue being grateful.
> NATO will weaken, rather than fail, and that will make us more important as a bridge to those for whom defence matters.

It will probably require a transition period beyond Art50 to set in place the passports, equivalence regime, and arbitration.
Broadly, i think this benign view of events will come about due to mutual self-interest:
When 80% of FDI arrives through london, hard-brexit is calamitous stupidity to nations with negative interest rates, 10% unemployment, and weak growth.The next cyclical downturn is coming, u ready yet?
Whatever the UK gets will be 'inferior' to EU membership. But that's fine, because it will mainly involve the EU keeping things we don't value very much, and the UK gaining things that the EU doesn't rate very highly. This is after all why we are leaving, because there was a mismatch between the perceived benefits and tradeoffs.
Oh, and security for trade is definitely a thing.

[Fragony]

Here is one issue, that have not yet gained much attention:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/04/uk-jobs-merkel-juncker-euro-clearing-eu-manfred-weber-brexit

It would seem that EU is not going to leave Euro Clearing to London after Brexit, which is going to hit the British financial sector pretty hard. Maybe it will move to Amsterdam, interesting to see what Frag´s says if it does.

Goes both ways http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/13/dutch-bank-ing-to-move-dozens-of-trading-jobs-to-london/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ref what I was talking about before - Spain invaded Gibraltar's water yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/fco-defends-navy-ordering-spanish-boat-out-of-gibraltar-waters

Honestly, this really could sink everything.

[Fragony]

Insanity, time to freeze Spanish accounts, if they insist on this put on the hurt, hello Spain, you got billions in The City the UK can play hardball as well and better because they are Brittish, and you are, well Spanish

[Sarmatian]

Ref what I was talking about before - Spain invaded Gibraltar's water yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/fco-defends-navy-ordering-spanish-boat-out-of-gibraltar-waters

Honestly, this really could sink everything.

These incidents are more common than one thinks and they rarely lead to anything substantial unless they're blown out of proportions (usually by the media).

[Fragony]

These incidents are more common than one thinks and they rarely lead to anything substantial unless they're blown out of proportions (usually by the media).

You are right about that of course but Spain is actually being an asshole and fully knows what you said as well, if you look at it in the context of the EU trying to screw the UK any way they can, well..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These incidents are more common than one thinks and they rarely lead to anything substantial unless they're blown out of proportions (usually by the media).

They're very common - we put up with them. The point is that this is how the Spanish have been pursuing this, with illegal incursions and onerous border checks.

[Husar]

They're very common - we put up with them. The point is that this is how the Spanish have been pursuing this, with illegal incursions and onerous border checks.

Conquering it 300 years ago was not an illegal incursion?
From a nationalist perspective, one the UK should be very familiar with, it only makes sense that they want to reunite their nation's territory.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Conquering it 300 years ago was not an illegal incursion?
From a nationalist perspective, one the UK should be very familiar with, it only makes sense that they want to reunite their nation's territory.

Under the laws of war, no.

We are not legally at war with Spain.

Also - times have changed and Gibraltar has been British throughout living memory. There is no one alive now who remembers it being Spanish. Furthermore, the citizens of Gibraltar want to remain British, and they were born there.

Support for the Spanish position is untenable - morally speaking - because Gibraltar does no harm to Spain as a British territory but handing it over to Spain would do great harm to Gibraltarians.

[Sarmatian]

handing it over to Spain would do great harm to Gibraltarians.

Probably not, but people tend to prefer status quo if there are no obvious and/or immediate benefits.

[Husar]

Under the laws of war, no.

We are not legally at war with Spain.

Also - times have changed and Gibraltar has been British throughout living memory. There is no one alive now who remembers it being Spanish. Furthermore, the citizens of Gibraltar want to remain British, and they were born there.

Support for the Spanish position is untenable - morally speaking - because Gibraltar does no harm to Spain as a British territory but handing it over to Spain would do great harm to Gibraltarians.

Would you prefer if they declared war on you?

And how many people were still alive who remembered the actual state of Israel when you gave it back to them?
Times may have changed, but that is not really an argument you can win a conflict with.

Gibraltar harms the Spanish national spirit as it is like a mark of defeat, a stain on the integrity of their national territory.
They also reconquered their land from the Caliphate(s) long after anyone who remembered it being Spanish land was still alive.
As a historian you should know that the national memory lasts far longer than the personal one.

As Sarmatian says, the Spanish wouldn't harm Gibraltarians most likely, but the Spanish are harmed by this stain on their territory every day.

[Montmorency]

As a historian you should know that the national memory lasts far longer than the personal one.


If Mexico and Canada can federalize with the United States, I'm fine with Germany reclaiming Pomerania and Silesia.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmTtL3mVMdg&t=108s

[Husar]

If Mexico and Canada can federalize with the United States, I'm fine with Germany reclaiming Pomerania and Silesia.

Well, due to the EU, the entire HRE/Frankish Empire and a few others are reunited anyway.
The Spanish would have stopped this sillyness anyway by the time they'd all been Europeans instead of UKzians and Spaniards.
The EU Navy cannot violate its own territory in the future, but it can violate UK territory.

[Pannonian]

Would you prefer if they declared war on you?

And how many people were still alive who remembered the actual state of Israel when you gave it back to them?
Times may have changed, but that is not really an argument you can win a conflict with.

Gibraltar harms the Spanish national spirit as it is like a mark of defeat, a stain on the integrity of their national territory.
They also reconquered their land from the Caliphate(s) long after anyone who remembered it being Spanish land was still alive.
As a historian you should know that the national memory lasts far longer than the personal one.

As Sarmatian says, the Spanish wouldn't harm Gibraltarians most likely, but the Spanish are harmed by this stain on their territory every day.

We tolerate the existence of the independent United States. Why shouldn't the Spanish tolerate the existence of a British Gibraltar. Both are marks of defeat. Should the Spanish get the Netherlands back as well, to soothe their easily upset historical sensibilities?

[Furunculus]

We tolerate the existence of the independent United States. Why shouldn't the Spanish tolerate the existence of a British Gibraltar. Both are marks of defeat. Should the Spanish get the Netherlands back as well, to soothe their easily upset historical sensibilities?

or, we could have calais back.

self determination either means something, or it does not. spain needs to figure out which way to fall on the issue.

[Pannonian]

or, we could have calais back.

self determination either means something, or it does not. spain needs to figure out which way to fall on the issue.

Britain holds Gibraltar by right of conquest (right wing argument, went out of fashion after Napoleon), right of treaty (right wing argument, has never gone out of fashion), and right of self determination (left wing argument, became primary method of determination during WW1 and has been ever since). Husar's support of Spain over Gibraltar is based on wanting to screw Britain over, nothing more.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh come now, Gents, let's be reasonable and just agree that the Kingdom of Belgium has no right to exist. It should be partitioned and given back to the Dutch and French respectively.

[Kagemusha]

People should accept the past and look forward. Hell Finland lost Karelia and Petsamo to Soviet Union during WW2, with them the second largest city at the time in Finland, Viborg, with half a million refugees from those areas relocating to areas that remained. We also still have people wanting to get those areas back after 73 years. What is in the past is in the past. There are always excuses for war, but is that shit worth it?

[Pannonian]

Oh come now, Gents, let's be reasonable and just agree that the Kingdom of Belgium has no right to exist. It should be partitioned and given back to the Dutch and French respectively.

As Husar wants to turn back the clock to before Gibraltar became English, things were better back in the 17th century when holidaymakers from all over Europe were touring Germany for thirty years at a time. The native German delicacies were much enjoyed by these European tourists.

[Kagemusha]

http://countryballs.net/_nw/32/33331478.png

[Husar]

We tolerate the existence of the independent United States. Why shouldn't the Spanish tolerate the existence of a British Gibraltar. Both are marks of defeat. Should the Spanish get the Netherlands back as well, to soothe their easily upset historical sensibilities?


or, we could have calais back.

self determination either means something, or it does not. spain needs to figure out which way to fall on the issue.

None of those are in the immediate national territory of the nations, Spain still has a core on Gibraltar. :stare:
Calais is the worst example since you conquered that from France in the first place. :whip:


Husar's support of Spain over Gibraltar is based on wanting to screw Britain over, nothing more.

It's 90% pulling British legs, one of my favourite pastimes given how easy it is. The other 10% are revenge for the Brexit vote and generally being island whiners. :clown:

[edyzmedieval]

Judging by the amount of dissatisfaction from the EU, to put it nicely, with the way the negotiations have went so far - and even the idea of Brexit - UK will have a sinuous road for the next two years.

Free trade deal is the most important one and if it doesn't get negotiated fast, London will lose a ton of banks (first) and then a lot of businesses (second).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Britain holds Gibraltar by right of conquest (right wing argument, went out of fashion after Napoleon), right of treaty (right wing argument, has never gone out of fashion), and right of self determination (left wing argument, became primary method of determination during WW1 and has been ever since). Husar's support of Spain over Gibraltar is based on wanting to screw Britain over, nothing more.

I think you have the basic flow of things correctly assessed here.

However, I am not as sanguine with your ascription of self determination as the dominant theme for decision to the "left." I will note that I am reacting to that labeling as a yank, however, so it may be a translation issue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Judging by the amount of dissatisfaction from the EU, to put it nicely, with the way the negotiations have went so far - and even the idea of Brexit - UK will have a sinuous road for the next two years.

Free trade deal is the most important one and if it doesn't get negotiated fast, London will lose a ton of banks (first) and then a lot of businesses (second).

And the EU's financial system will seize up, causing Eurozone Crash Two

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...There are always excuses for war, but is that shit worth it?

Sadly, I think it is an Emperor Mong thing. Wars truly "work" only seldomly, but it happens JUST often enough where people are tempted by it and won't give it up.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the EU's financial system will seize up, causing Eurozone Crash Two

Well, at least it would not be USA derivatives dealers causing the crash this time....probably....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

None of those are in the immediate national territory of the nations, Spain still has a core on Gibraltar. :stare:
Calais is the worst example since you conquered that from France in the first place. :whip:



It's 90% pulling British legs, one of my favourite pastimes given how easy it is. The other 10% are revenge for the Brexit vote and generally being island whiners. :clown:

This is pretty much the definition of "being a jerk".

Let's hope the EU negotiators are not also motivated by pique, although it seems they may well be.


I think you have the basic flow of things correctly assessed here.

However, I am not as sanguine with your ascription of self determination as the dominant theme for decision to the "left." I will note that I am reacting to that labeling as a yank, however, so it may be a translation issue.

Self-Determination is THE argument for sovereignty in the UK, there isn't really any other. The tenacity with which the UK holds to that argument has its roots in the Falklands War, a war we did not want to fight and which was very costly relative to the number of citizens and the territory at risk. This is why the UK can sometimes sound very bellicose, it's not a desire for war in the slightest, it's a fear that our resolve will be underestimated and we'll have to fight another war we can ill afford to protect our Overseas Territories. The view is then further informed by the bitter taste we have from freely handing Hong Kong back to China largely against the desires of the Hong Kong Chinese. A lot of Brits, myself included, feel at least partly responsible for what has happened since despite recognising that we couldn't keep Hong Kong without the New Territories and would not have been able to negotiate a new lease with the PRC.

So, you'd beter bloody believe we'll defend Gibraltar, Bermuda etc. to the hilt

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/spain-gibraltar-traffic-jams--brexit-tensions


Police in the territory known as the Rock, which is home to 32,000 people, tweeted: “All those driving toward Spain should expect long delays.” Gibraltar’s government earlier posted on Twitter that vehicles faced two-hour lines to cross into Spain.


Neither Spain’s interior ministry nor the national police responded to AFP’s requests to confirm that border measures had been tightened.



This is legal terrorism - make life unpleasant for the people of Gibraltar because they refuse to accept Spanish rule. It's despicable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/spain-gibraltar-traffic-jams--brexit-tensions

This is legal terrorism - make life unpleasant for the people of Gibraltar because they refuse to accept Spanish rule. It's despicable.

I disagree with the use of "terrorism" for something that isn't terror-inducing or life-threatening. I agree that they are being needlessly unpleasant. It is clearly punitive and, I believe, petulant as well.

[Montmorency]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/spain-gibraltar-traffic-jams--brexit-tensions



This is legal terrorism - make life unpleasant for the people of Gibraltar because they refuse to accept Spanish rule. It's despicable.


I disagree with the use of "terrorism" for something that isn't terror-inducing or life-threatening. I agree that they are being needlessly unpleasant. It is clearly punitive and, I believe, petulant as well.

Hello, political violence. :)

[Kagemusha]

Self-Determination is THE argument for sovereignty in the UK, there isn't really any other. The tenacity with which the UK holds to that argument has its roots in the Falklands War, a war we did not want to fight and which was very costly relative to the number of citizens and the territory at risk. This is why the UK can sometimes sound very bellicose, it's not a desire for war in the slightest, it's a fear that our resolve will be underestimated and we'll have to fight another war we can ill afford to protect our Overseas Territories. The view is then further informed by the bitter taste we have from freely handing Hong Kong back to China largely against the desires of the Hong Kong Chinese. A lot of Brits, myself included, feel at least partly responsible for what has happened since despite recognising that we couldn't keep Hong Kong without the New Territories and would not have been able to negotiate a new lease with the PRC.

So, you'd beter bloody believe we'll defend Gibraltar, Bermuda etc. to the hilt

To be honest. I am not sure i buy this. Based on multiple threads. Your posts seem to advocate war any time there is even slight possibility to it.

[Gilrandir]

Probably not, but people tend to prefer status quo if there are no obvious and/or immediate benefits.

... or immediate threats (whether real or imagined).


or, we could have calais back.


Put in Anjou and Aquitaine as well.


People should accept the past and look forward. Hell Finland lost Karelia and Petsamo to Soviet Union during WW2, with them the second largest city at the time in Finland, Viborg, with half a million refugees from those areas relocating to areas that remained.

It was a piece of luck for Suomi. Look at the state Russia is in and compare it to your country's. Some people here would call it a small price to pay for your current life.

[Strike For The South]

Spain and Italy playing important is my favorite part of western politics. Like a couple of hairy dwarves running around ones feet.

[Sarmatian]

Spain and Italy playing important is my favorite part of western politics. Like a couple of hairy dwarves running around ones feet.

Joke as much as you want but Italy still could probably take on Ethiopia and win.

[Husar]

Italy even has its own arms industry to some extent. And I'm not talking about some sidearms but tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete), light tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_Centauro) and helicopters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_A129_Mangusta).

Granted, they're not well-known for this internationally, but compared to the wooden mockups high-tech military inventions Iran always presents to the world....

I think the guns from OTO Melara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara) can be found on quite a few naval vessels. Like this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm), being used on the famous Oliver Hazard Perry class of the USN, among many other ships worldwide.

And don't forget fashion and food!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spain and Italy playing important is my favorite part of western politics. Like a couple of hairy dwarves running around ones feet.

You have a way with imagery you do.

Maybe not 'poetic' but certainly you do paint a picture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be honest. I am not sure i buy this. Based on multiple threads. Your posts seem to advocate war any time there is even slight possibility to it.

Do they?

War against Assad in Syria, yes. I stand by that given the recent chemical attack.

War against Spain or another country not currently killing its own people? No.

Military action is a tool of Diplomacy to be used in the absence of other effective tools. That does not make its use in any way desirable because it incurs the greatest material and moral cost to the society that wages it.

[Strike For The South]

Italy even has its own arms industry to some extent. And I'm not talking about some sidearms but tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete), light tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_Centauro) and helicopters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_A129_Mangusta).

Granted, they're not well-known for this internationally, but compared to the wooden mockups high-tech military inventions Iran always presents to the world....

I think the guns from OTO Melara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara) can be found on quite a few naval vessels. Like this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm), being used on the famous Oliver Hazard Perry class of the USN, among many other ships worldwide.

And don't forget fashion and food!

Italy has always produced some good hardware. It's the frightening incompetence of the general staff that sinks them. its interesting that Italy never really had a formative war before the Great War to formulate its military bureaucracy. Germany adopted the Prussian model and solidified it after 1871. America solidified its after the civil war. Italy didn't do anything and reaps what it sowed a century ago to this day (as do the other countries). That's my working theory.

[Kagemusha]

Do they?

War against Assad in Syria, yes. I stand by that given the recent chemical attack.

War against Spain or another country not currently killing its own people? No.

Military action is a tool of Diplomacy to be used in the absence of other effective tools. That does not make its use in any way desirable because it incurs the greatest material and moral cost to the society that wages it.

I am talking about earlier discussions like the inevitability of major war with Putin´s Russia. And your wish for "real" war with Islamist´s. If i miss read you as very hawkish, then my apologies for misunderstanding your stance on several issues.

[Kagemusha]

Italy has always produced some good hardware. It's the frightening incompetence of the general staff that sinks them. its interesting that Italy never really had a formative war before the Great War to formulate its military bureaucracy. Germany adopted the Prussian model and solidified it after 1871. America solidified its after the civil war. Italy didn't do anything and reaps what it sowed a century ago to this day (as do the other countries). That's my working theory.

Yeah.Not that they have been part in compatible NATO command structure for decades, thus their C&C very similar to all the other NATO commands (Which is kind of the point of NATO). Third major contributor after USA and UK in peacekeeping operations since 1980. In current missions they have been in charge of ISAF regional command West at Herat province Afghanistan since the start of the campaign.

I guess WW2 just doesnt let go of them...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am talking about earlier discussions like the inevitability of major war with Putin´s Russia. And your wish for "real" war with Islamist´s. If i miss read you as very hawkish, then my apologies for misunderstanding your stance on several issues.

OK, well I can address both of those.

As regards Putin - I consider that war becomes more likely the longer Putin is in power and the more leeway we give him. However, as I recall I said that several years ago and since then the US and the EU has remained surprisingly stalwart in enforcing sanctions that hurt Russia's economy and military capacity so war may not be "inevitable".

As regards the Islamists, I was at pains to make the point that a "real" war was preferable to the current situation where we are, as a society, on a war footing but with no enemy we can really fight. It should go without saying that not being on a war-footing is infinitely preferable than status quo or fighting an actual war.

Despite me trying to explain this a number of times several posters insisted on wilfully misinterpreting my statements as a "quasi-Fascist" call to war for the sake of the nation's soul.

I can only repeat myself so many times before I give up.

[Montmorency]

As regards the Islamists, I was at pains to make the point that a "real" war was preferable to the current situation where we are, as a society, on a war footing but with no enemy we can really fight. It should go without saying that not being on a war-footing is infinitely preferable than status quo or fighting an actual war.


But note the distinction between 'prefer the other thing over this one'
and
'from this situation to other (i.e. toward "real war") would resolve extant ill effects'.

That's why you have to be more precise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But note the distinction between 'prefer the other thing over this one'
and
'from this situation to other (i.e. toward "real war") would resolve extant ill effects'.

That's why you have to be more precise.

Except I never said that, you just inferred it, and unreasonably I would say.

[Montmorency]

I wish I were Gilrandir in this moment. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wish I were Gilrandir in this moment. :shrug:

I wish you would stop being so obtuse, though really the disease seems to be spreading throughout the Backroom.

Why, prey tell, do you wish you were Gilrandir in that moment?

[Strike For The South]

Yeah.Not that they have been part in compatible NATO command structure for decades, thus their C&C very similar to all the other NATO commands (Which is kind of the point of NATO). Third major contributor after USA and UK in peacekeeping operations since 1980. In current missions they have been in charge of ISAF regional command West at Herat province Afghanistan since the start of the campaign.

I guess WW2 just doesnt let go of them...

My brain was on the world wars because of Sarmatains comment. I don't think there is something inherently broken about Italian manpower. I think there is (or was) something broken about their general staff. Which, as you point out, is null now because the NATO command structure is US based.

[Gilrandir]

Why, prey tell, do you wish you were Gilrandir in that moment?

Having an Elvish name is what everybody wishes to enjoy.

[Furunculus]

or, we could have calais back.

self determination either means something, or it does not. spain needs to figure out which way to fall on the issue.
Husar's support of Spain over Gibraltar is based on wanting to screw Britain over, nothing more.


It's 90% pulling British legs, one of my favourite pastimes given how easy it is. The other 10% are revenge for the Brexit vote and generally being island whiners. :clown:

Is that what you imagine you are doing? Okay... ;)

[Elmetiacos]

Italy has always produced some good hardware. It's the frightening incompetence of the general staff that sinks them. its interesting that Italy never really had a formative war before the Great War to formulate its military bureaucracy....and that's why Venice is still part of Austria.

[Brenus]

or, we could have calais back..
Well, we would say France never really fully recognise English Independance. So, as Richard failed to find a buyer for London, perhaps it is time for UK to come back under the French rules...

Dieu et mon Droit, Honni soit qui mal y Pense...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, we would say France never really fully recognise English Independance. So, as Richard failed to find a buyer for London, perhaps it is time for UK to come back under the French rules...

Dieu et mon Droit, Honni soit qui mal y Pense...

I've always found it worth a chuckle that Richard I "Lionheart" gets all of the "good guy" image in Robin Hood pictures -- but historically is known to have spoken French and Occitan, but not much if any English and may well have spent fewer than six months in England during the entirety of his life. One of the great "English" kings....

[HopAlongBunny]

Well I hope this possibility comes to pass:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39510351

The embrace of Scotland within the Canadian fold would bring the colonizer legacy full circle :clown:

[Pannonian]

I've always found it worth a chuckle that Richard I "Lionheart" gets all of the "good guy" image in Robin Hood pictures -- but historically is known to have spoken French and Occitan, but not much if any English and may well have spent fewer than six months in England during the entirety of his life. One of the great "English" kings....

He was a king. Disagree with the other two adjectives though. His father was a far better king for England (saying to his illegitimate son, who stuck with him, "You're the only one of my sons who's not a bastard". IIRC Henry V was the first king to really identify himself as English.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well I hope this possibility comes to pass:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39510351

The embrace of Scotland within the Canadian fold would bring the colonizer legacy full circle :clown:

Or the beggining of the reverse-reintegration of the empire.


He was a king. Disagree with the other two adjectives though. His father was a far better king for England (saying to his illegitimate son, who stuck with him, "You're the only one of my sons who's not a bastard". IIRC Henry V was the first king to really identify himself as English.

Richard was undoubtedly a great king, he displayed all the bravery, chivalry, leadership and piety expected of his position. Well, the last one is a bit debatable as he seems to have sometimes sought "alternative companionship" whilst on campaign. Despite that apparent weakness, however, Richard was undoubtedly a great warrior-king. His attitude to England in this context is understandable - unlike his possessions on the Continent or Outremer England was stable and essentially safe. If England had been constantly menaced by the Scots or Norse I imagine he would have spent more time there.

As to Henry V being the first "English" King since the Conquest that's essentially Tudor propaganda. The Plantagenet Kings were native English speakers from at least Edward III and possibly from the time of Edward II. At the court of Richard II English prose and verse was as popular as Anglo-Norman French.

[Gilrandir]

I've always found it worth a chuckle that Richard I "Lionheart" gets all of the "good guy" image in Robin Hood pictures -- but historically is known to have spoken French and Occitan, but not much if any English and may well have spent fewer than six months in England during the entirety of his life. One of the great "English" kings....


He had a good PR manager.




Despite that apparent weakness, however, Richard was undoubtedly a great warrior-king.

According to Steven Runciman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Crusades), Richard was a great warrior, but a bad king.

[Brenus]

I've always found it worth a chuckle that Richard I "Lionheart" gets all of the "good guy" image in Robin Hood pictures -- but historically is known to have spoken French and Occitan, but not much if any English and may well have spent fewer than six months in England during the entirety of his life. One of the great "English" kings....

That is History for you. I wrote my Degree in History about it, how media (in this case books, series and movies) shapes the representation of yourself as Nation. We have a similar case in France. Thanks to Alexandre Dumas and his 3 Musketeers, the Cardinal de Richelieu, one probably of the top 5 great French politicians, is always the bad guy...

[Fragony]

French kings are bad by default get over it

[Brenus]

French kings are bad by default get over it

Richelieu was not a King.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Richelieu was not a King.

He was the King's Hand in GoT terms.

And yes, he was flippin' brilliant and a better long-term planner then most.

[Shaka_Khan]

Italy even has its own arms industry to some extent. And I'm not talking about some sidearms but tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete), light tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_Centauro) and helicopters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_A129_Mangusta).

Granted, they're not well-known for this internationally, but compared to the wooden mockups high-tech military inventions Iran always presents to the world....

I think the guns from OTO Melara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara) can be found on quite a few naval vessels. Like this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm), being used on the famous Oliver Hazard Perry class of the USN, among many other ships worldwide.

And don't forget fashion and food!
And they have a pretty impressive helicopter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBz_EnNVmIs

[Husar]

And they have a pretty impressive helicopter.

Probably why I linked it, then again even South Africa can build their own attack helicopter. Only Germany can't do it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Probably why I linked it, then again even South Africa can build their own attack helicopter. Only Germany can't do it.

Can't?

Doubt that.

[Husar]

Can't?

Doubt that.

We really can't. The Tiger for France has a gun mount just like the Apache that the pilot can aim with his head or so. We only ordered the Tiger in tank buster config and had the gun removed to save money. Then we sent it to Afghanistan where the army found out that it is useless for fire support because aiming with gunpods under the stub wings is quite hard...
Obviously anyone with half a brain could have figured that out before, but in our army we also can't fly with half our interceptors due to a lack of spare parts while the ministry can't spend all its budget because the suppliers can't supply any material that we could pay for. Meanwhile the budget is being increased further to meet NATO standards.

I guess we can kill the Taliban individually with anti tank guided missiles and bury Putin in money, should he invade. :clown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We really can't. The Tiger for France has a gun mount just like the Apache that the pilot can aim with his head or so. We only ordered the Tiger in tank buster config and had the gun removed to save money. Then we sent it to Afghanistan where the army found out that it is useless for fire support because aiming with gunpods under the stub wings is quite hard...
Obviously anyone with half a brain could have figured that out before, but in our army we also can't fly with half our interceptors due to a lack of spare parts while the ministry can't spend all its budget because the suppliers can't supply any material that we could pay for. Meanwhile the budget is being increased further to meet NATO standards.

I guess we can kill the Taliban individually with anti tank guided missiles and bury Putin in money, should he invade. :clown:

Wow, and I thought the Pentagon was chasing its own tail in useless circles...

[Husar]

Wow, and I thought the Pentagon was chasing its own tail in useless circles...

Well, there are of course other programs that seem to work, such as the new Puma IFV, the Leopard 2 still works and I have no idea about the infantry upgrades. The truth about the accuracy of the G-36 seems hard to find though. It's mostly the aerial stuff where we seem to have huge issues. The A-400M was delayed for a very long time and the NH-90 was apparently built to the weirdest requirements, most striking seems to be the lack of ground clearance that makes it impossible to land on terrain that isn't very flat...
I keep wondering how they work on the requirements and how much those highly paid engineers think about them or whether the industry does this on purpose to demand more money for fixes and so on...

After all they source all these flying machines from EADS, which is a merger of a bazillion former airplane manufacturers (including famous ones like Fokker and Messerschmidt) and pretty much a monopoly by now. In the civilian sector they have Boeing as a competitor but the German Air Force would probably not make them compete with Dassault from France whereas Dassault probably had to make the Rafale extra good so France would buy it over the Eurofighter....
Not that the Eurofighter is terrible, it just lacks spare parts and still needs upgrades for full functionality, oh and it cost a fortune...

[rory_20_uk]

Military hardware is something I do genuinely find interesting, but discussing it in a Brexit thread seems overly tangential.

:focus:

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Military hardware is something I do genuinely find interesting, but discussing it in a Brexit thread seems overly tangential.

:focus:

~:smoking:

Call it revenge, IIRC the last thread about something happening in Germany ended up being about Britain once more.
You Brits still think you own the entire world and all its threads, topics an opinions, don't you? :stare:

[Fragony]

You (Germany) has bigger problems, the Netherlands isn't going to leave very soon but willl eventually, going to ask for tarrifs for the supply of your own key-industries, just like the British will come out of this unharmed so will the Netherlands, and that is going to happen as the EU isn't exactly popular here, who really wants to comfort something that's slowly dying unless you give a damn about it dying. Nobody gives a fuck about the EU, only a handfull of europhiles. Trade will continue, deals will still be made. Just without that repulsive facehugger who is too drunk to find his breakfest-cognac

[Franconicus]

Let's go back to the original topic. I want to return to the "Gibraltar Affair", now that smoke cleared.

What happened so far.

The British people decided to leave the EU, obviously thinking they could save money, get rid of European immigrants and regulations while keeping access to the EU market. The result was tight and while some areas were pro Brexit, others were not.

The EU made clear that there could not free access to the EU market without accepting the other freedoms of the EU.

The British Prime replied that the Brits wanted to have a HARD EXIT, which means total control over the borders at any cost.

Scotland's government refused to follow this position, they argued that the English may leave if they want to but that they want to have the same freedom to decide to stay.

UK and EU prepared for the negotiations. There will be million things to negotiate, but there are obviously some central issues: borders, economy, money. UK and Britain have two common land borders, both with difficult historical background. It is clear that the UK gov. will try to support the special interests of Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. In return the EU will have to respect the interests of all members (I guess all have to agree to an arrangement), so you do not have to have access to secret strategy papers to know that the EU will support the interests of Spain and Ireland regarding the borders.

Even though this is so clear that it does not seem to be worth mentioning, members of the UK government got upset and even talked about war. Well, this is something you can expect from a war crazy forum like this :laugh4:, but what the hell came to the minds of the UK politicians? Even if UK leaves the EU, it will still be part of NATO. It has been allied with Spain for decades, even won the cold war together. And now they are talking about war? Why? To me it shows how nervous and clueless the UK government is.

To me it seems that the two main results of the negotiations are already clear: the UK will close its borders and the EU will close its market. There will be some trade agreements, but in the end, conditions will be much worse than before. However, I am curious about a solution for Ireland. Both sides seem to want a permeable border there. But how can this be realized when UK wants to have impermeable borders to the EU? This is something I am really curious.

[Gilrandir]

UK and EU prepared for the negotiations. There will be million things to negotiate, but there are obviously some central issues: borders, economy, money.



They have different currencies so money will not be an issue.

[Fragony]

Let's go back to the original topic. I want to return to the "Gibraltar Affair", now that smoke cleared.

What happened so far.

The British people decided to leave the EU, obviously thinking they could save money, get rid of European immigrants and regulations while keeping access to the EU market. The result was tight and while some areas were pro Brexit, others were not.

The EU made clear that there could not free access to the EU market without accepting the other freedoms of the EU.

The British Prime replied that the Brits wanted to have a HARD EXIT, which means total control over the borders at any cost.

Scotland's government refused to follow this position, they argued that the English may leave if they want to but that they want to have the same freedom to decide to stay.

UK and EU prepared for the negotiations. There will be million things to negotiate, but there are obviously some central issues: borders, economy, money. UK and Britain have two common land borders, both with difficult historical background. It is clear that the UK gov. will try to support the special interests of Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. In return the EU will have to respect the interests of all members (I guess all have to agree to an arrangement), so you do not have to have access to secret strategy papers to know that the EU will support the interests of Spain and Ireland regarding the borders.

Even though this is so clear that it does not seem to be worth mentioning, members of the UK government got upset and even talked about war. Well, this is something you can expect from a war crazy forum like this :laugh4:, but what the hell came to the minds of the UK politicians? Even if UK leaves the EU, it will still be part of NATO. It has been allied with Spain for decades, even won the cold war together. And now they are talking about war? Why? To me it shows how nervous and clueless the UK government is.

To me it seems that the two main results of the negotiations are already clear: the UK will close its borders and the EU will close its market. There will be some trade agreements, but in the end, conditions will be much worse than before. However, I am curious about a solution for Ireland. Both sides seem to want a permeable border there. But how can this be realized when UK wants to have impermeable borders to the EU? This is something I am really curious.

Conditions will better as there are no longer limitations on trading outside of the EU, and the EU will cave in as EU-countries WILL make agreements. It's a beauty really. I love the Brits for their 'just piss off' mentality. Hopefully we will be next. Diplomatic truth, the Netherlands agrees with England but obeys Germany. And that plumb childles eastblock farmhorse called Merkel makes it soooo easy, hermotivstions are her own, she doesn't have to import her little children that should come to her

[Franconicus]

Money, I meant who has to pay for what.

[Franconicus]

Conditions will better as there are no longer limitations on trading outside of the EU, and the EU will cave in as EU-countries WILL make agreements. It's a beauty really. I love the Brits for their 'just piss off' mentality. Hopefully we will be next. Diplomatic truth, the Netherlands agrees with England but obeys Germany. And that plumb childles eastblock farmhorse called Merkel makes it soooo easy, hermotivstions are her own, she doesn't have to import her little children that should come to her

Wishful thinking will not take the Brits very far, nor the Dutch. And hateful visions of a German domination does not meat reality at all.

I also love the Brits for their consequence. But they are used to blame the EU for everything. In the end, they will blame the EU that life will be so much worse after BREXIT. (sigh)
One example. You know that England is the homeland of football and each and every English I know still believes that England ought to be the leading country in football. In fact no other country spends so much money on football and the English league is the most expensive one in the world. However, the English team has not been able to match with the top nations for decades, Who is to blame. The EU of course. There are far too many middle class players from all over Europe playing in the major league, taking away chances for Engllish talents. After Brexit, things will become better, of course. Who am I to disagree. But if you look at the most successful teams of the last decades - Brazil, France, Spain, Italy, Germany - with one exception they are all members of the EU and they will remain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even though this is so clear that it does not seem to be worth mentioning, members of the UK government got upset and even talked about war. Well, this is something you can expect from a war crazy forum like this :laugh4:, but what the hell came to the minds of the UK politicians? Even if UK leaves the EU, it will still be part of NATO. It has been allied with Spain for decades, even won the cold war together. And now they are talking about war? Why? To me it shows how nervous and clueless the UK government is.

No member of the UK's government talked about war, or the Falklands. It was Lord Howard who made the comparison between the rights of the Falklanders as defended by Margaret Thatcher and the defence of the Gibraltarians under Mrs May. Howard did not say "we will go to war" he said that we would defend the Gibraltarians as we had the Falklanders, which is true, I think.

Lord Howard is a former minister and Leader of the Opposition - he is not a member of the current government.

In any case, point being made is not that we expect Spain to attack Gibraltar, it is that there will simply be no give so long as 99% of Gibraltarians want to remain British and only British.

That is why the tone out of Westminster, and the UK as a whole, was combative - because we want it to be ABSOLUTELY clear there is no give. Why is that you ask? Last time we weren't clear, over the Falklands, we had to fight a costly war to make the point.

All of this against the background of Spain regularly and maliciously interfering with the land-border and invading Gibraltarian waters. Spain is not really a UK ally, we have quite frosty relations with them and only NATO guarantees we would not end up in a shooting war over this. Be assured, though, if there ever is such a war it will start with Spain, not the UK.


To me it seems that the two main results of the negotiations are already clear: the UK will close its borders and the EU will close its market. There will be some trade agreements, but in the end, conditions will be much worse than before. However, I am curious about a solution for Ireland. Both sides seem to want a permeable border there. But how can this be realized when UK wants to have impermeable borders to the EU? This is something I am really curious.

No, the UK will not "close its borders", it will most likely be the case that people from the EU will still be able to travel to the UK with relative ease, they just won't be able to work here without a Visa. That's not "closed borders" that's just less-than-full Freedom of Movement. The issue with Ireland has nothing to do with rights of residence though as all Irish people automatically have the right to reside in the UK, work in the UK and vote in the UK. The concern over the Irish border is to do with movement of goods, i.e. customs.

Nobody's going to stop the Irish coming here, for one thing the British army would collapse!

[Montmorency]

all Irish people automatically have the right to reside in the UK, work in the UK and vote in the UK

Where does this apply? Elections at all levels if you're a UK resident of Irish nationality? I presume not referenda, though.

[Pannonian]

Where does this apply? Elections at all levels if you're a UK resident of Irish nationality? I presume not referenda, though.

IIRC Irish citizens have the same electoral rights as UK citizens, up to and including standing for Parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where does this apply? Elections at all levels if you're a UK resident of Irish nationality? I presume not referenda, though.

There is no functional difference. Irish citizens have the same rights as citizens of the UK, and vice-versa.

It is almost as though the British and the Irish were one nationality under two separate governments.

[Montmorency]

I can't find anything on Irish nationals' vote on Brexit in 2016, or eligibility to do so. Figures I see for the number of people eligible to vote on the referendum (~46 million) seem to account just for the official UK population, and not any special consideration such as a potential eligibility of all Irish nationals.

On the other hand, Ireland's population is small enough that they may plausibly fall into the above figure without looking at a breakdown.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/19/law-may-be-needed-preserve-rights-irish-uk-after-brexit

We could, in theory, have an Irish Prime Minister.

[Montmorency]

OK, here's a direct answer (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/649517/EU-referendum-2016-Voting-Voters-Allowed-British-Irish-Commonwealth-Citizens-European):


British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens who live in the UK, along with Britons who have lived abroad for less than 15 years, were eligible to vote.

So they do need to be residents of some nature.

Also, Maltese and Cyprian residents were eligible (noted for being both Commonwealth and EU citizens).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, here's a direct answer (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/649517/EU-referendum-2016-Voting-Voters-Allowed-British-Irish-Commonwealth-Citizens-European):



So they do need to be residents of some nature.

Also, Maltese and Cyprian residents were eligible (noted for being both Commonwealth and EU citizens).

Anyone from the Commonwealth can vote or stand for Parliament.

One of the reasons we want to strengthen ties with other Commonwealth nations is to convince them to (once again) reciprocate because we do not want to revoke those rights.

[Husar]

Lord Howard is a former minister and Leader of the Opposition - he is not a member of the current government.

Pff, he is a lord in a monarchy, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is also called a duck, then it's a duck. :clown:

[Gilrandir]

One example. You know that England is the homeland of football and each and every English I know still believes that England ought to be the leading country in football. In fact no other country spends so much money on football and the English league is the most expensive one in the world. However, the English team has not been able to match with the top nations for decades, Who is to blame.

The reason of it was that under the EU the money wasn't spent effectively because of the beaurocracy in Brussels. England should introduce some kind of football tax which the will give England the edge over the EU and ensure the money isn't wasted like it used to be before Brexit.



So they do need to be residents of some nature.

Also, Maltese and Cyprian residents were eligible (noted for being both Commonwealth and EU citizens).

So EU citizens can directly elect the non-EU country's government? And now you will tell me that Brexit was neccessary to stop EUnians poking their nose into the UK's business?

[Franconicus]

The reason of it was that under the EU the money wasn't spent effectively because of the beaurocracy in Brussels. England should introduce some kind of football tax which the will give England the edge over the EU and ensure the money isn't wasted like it used to be before Brexit.

Please explain me that? Why was EU beaurocrazy leading to bad football? What shall a football tax do to improve English football? And why are other EU countries much more successful? (Even Greece and Portugal won the Euro Championship!!!!)

[Gilrandir]

Please explain me that? Why was EU beaurocrazy leading to bad football? What shall a football tax do to improve English football? And why are other EU countries much more successful? (Even Greece and Portugal won the Euro Championship!!!!)

In fact, that was a piece of trolling on my part. I was imitating some Brits who explain all the problems of the country by its being in the EU.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please explain me that? Why was EU beaurocrazy leading to bad football? What shall a football tax do to improve English football? And why are other EU countries much more successful? (Even Greece and Portugal won the Euro Championship!!!!)

English footballers are among the best in the world, but English football has two problems.

1. Poor national-level management, especially picking "big name" players over the best team.

2. Everybody knows how English football works because we take so many players from other countries into out national league.

Basically, we are victims of our own success.

[Franconicus]

English footballers are among the best in the world, but English football has two problems.

1. Poor national-level management, especially picking "big name" players over the best team.

2. Everybody knows how English football works because we take so many players from other countries into out national league.

Basically, we are victims of our own success.

~:mecry: My sympathy.

1) may be right, I cannot judge this.
2) ? I do not think that the share of foreign players in England is bigger than in Germany. There was a discussion about that years ago. I think the Premier League is leading in marketing, so TV rights are sold all over the world and people watch them everywhere. Maybe they know English football this way.

[Elmetiacos]

...members of the UK government got upset and even talked about war.
No, to be clear: Michael Howard (a 74 year old arch-reactionary who hasn't been part of any government since 1997 and hasn't even been on the Conservative front bench for twelve years) made some vague remark about Thatcher and the Falklands which the meeja twisted into talking about war.

[Gilrandir]

English footballers are among the best in the world, but English football has two problems.

1. Poor national-level management, especially picking "big name" players over the best team.

2. Everybody knows how English football works because we take so many players from other countries into out national league.

Basically, we are victims of our own success.

Both of them boil down to ownership of teams by filthily rich tycoon.

[Husar]

I think the Premier League is leading in marketing, so TV rights are sold all over the world and people watch them everywhere. Maybe they know English football this way.

That's Socialism.
You just lost the argument, sorry.
Capitalism is never wrong, the UK invented it.


Both of them boil down to ownership of teams by filthily rich tycoon.

Are you talking about how Putin's buddies own half the UK's football teams and half the apartments in central London?
See above, Socialist argument, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Also ,even if you weren't wrong, it would be the EU's fault.
If it's not the EU's fault, it's the fault of Britain and its people being so awesome and successful.

Just like how the Germans were so awesome and successful in the 1920s and then the Bolshevik jews and the Capitalist jews brought the recession upon us by replacing all their teeth with gold or something, YES HITLER!

What were we talking about? :dizzy2:

[Gilrandir]

Are you talking about how Putin's buddies own half the UK's football teams and half the apartments in central London?
See above, Socialist argument, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Also ,even if you weren't wrong, it would be the EU's fault.
If it's not the EU's fault, it's the fault of Britain and its people being so awesome and successful.

Just like how the Germans were so awesome and successful in the 1920s and then the Bolshevik jews and the Capitalist jews brought the recession upon us by replacing all their teeth with gold or something, YES HITLER!

What were we talking about? :dizzy2:

Not sure if your indignation is genuine or you are trolling as usual. I was talking of a tendency evident in modern English football to sell clubs (or franchises as Americans call them) to rich foreigners - not neccessarily Russians, but Arabs as well. So the sports competition turns into a contest of wallets. The EU has nothing to do with it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not sure if your indignation is genuine or you are trolling as usual. I was talking of a tendency evident in modern English football to sell clubs (or franchises as Americans call them) to rich foreigners - not neccessarily Russians, but Arabs as well. So the sports competition turns into a contest of wallets. The EU has nothing to do with it.

Husar using the phrase "Yes Hitler!" and you aren't sure?

I think that's a pretty clear use of sardonic humor, for sooth.

[Husar]

Not sure if your indignation is genuine or you are trolling as usual. I was talking of a tendency evident in modern English football to sell clubs (or franchises as Americans call them) to rich foreigners - not neccessarily Russians, but Arabs as well. So the sports competition turns into a contest of wallets. The EU has nothing to do with it.

My indignation at what? The one you're supposed to read very clearly between the lines or the superficial one?
I can assure you the only indignation in my post was directed straight towards English nationalists and purely hidden in very obvious sarcasm...

I take offence at the insinuation that I am usually trolling, that's a very trolly comment considering it always comes up in attempts to shut me up or enrage me. Sarcasm is not the same as trolling.

[Gilrandir]

I take offence at the insinuation that I am usually trolling, that's a very trolly comment considering it always comes up in attempts to shut me up or enrage me. Sarcasm is not the same as trolling.

I apologize if you are offended. Let me rephrase my statement: Husar trolls more often than others here and I'm not always good at detecting it (especially if no emoticons are in evidence).

[Beskar]

Donald Trump reveals EU trade deal more important to US than deal with Britain after Brexit
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-reveals-eu-trade-deal-more-important-to-us-than-deal-with-britain-after-brexit-a3521051.html

"oops"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I apologize if you are offended. Let me rephrase my statement: Husar trolls more often than others here and I'm not always good at detecting it (especially if no emoticons are in evidence).

You are not the only one with that issue.

Husar is either cuttingly witty or not at all witty - I can't decide.

[Pannonian]

You are not the only one with that issue.

Husar is either cuttingly witty or not at all witty - I can't decide.

The latter pretending to be the former.

[Husar]

I'm not sure whether that was a complete lack of response to my point or just a distracting ad-hominem now, I just can't decide...

[Strike For The South]

Husar is a communist and thus devoid of all humanity.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I can't decide.

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/6J1FgqR.jpg

[Strike For The South]

Keep mocking. There are many more Greyblades than there are Beskars.

[Greyblades]

I'm an noun now?

Figures it happens only once I'd started outgrowing that boyish desire for acknowledgement.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm an noun now?

Figures it happens only once I'd started outgrowing that boyish desire for acknowledgement.

Same logic as I found with dating as a young fellow. Did miserably until I stopped giving a rat's patoot or trying. Then she chased me and I was married within two years.

[Greyblades]

Ah, if only all of life's successes could come without dogged persuit.

[Gilrandir]

I'm an noun now?



And pay attention that he used your name in plural whose form coincides with the singular. So now your are in one class with trout, salmon, deer, fish (should I mention swine?). Alternatively, since it has the s inflection you may be grouped together with glasses, scissors, braces (should I mention pants?). So pick one to your liking.

P.S. No offence intended. Just ruminations of a linguist.

[Beskar]

Keep mocking. There are many more Greyblades than there are Beskars.

Actually, that is false. Hard-line Brexiteers were estimated to be 17% of the vote, compared to the idea of 48% against leaving, and incorporating the large numbers who preferred soft-Brexit or believed promises plastered against the side of the bus.

So if the vote was based on values and what people actually knew what they were voting for, then Brexit would have not occurred.

[Husar]

Keep mocking. There are many more Greyblades than there are Beskars.

There are also more Germans than Englishmen...

[Strike For The South]

There are also more Germans than Englishmen...

There are more a Russians than Germans

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, that is false. Hard-line Brexiteers were estimated to be 17% of the vote, compared to the idea of 48% against leaving, and incorporating the large numbers who preferred soft-Brexit or believed promises plastered against the side of the bus.

So if the vote was based on values and what people actually knew what they were voting for, then Brexit would have not occurred.

You are guilty of a number of logical fallacies here.

1. The assumption that more information and/or more accurate information automatically leads to a uniform swing in favour of Remain.

How many Remainers are aware that the EU has three salaried Presidents, for the Commission, the Council and the Parliament?

How many Remainers are aware the EU Parliament has TWO buildings, one for debate and one for voting?

How many Remainers are aware of the theoretical exchange rate between the Euro and the German Mark or the Greek Drachma, and understand the implications?

Finally, how many have reviewed the economic data, particularly unemployment, for Southern Europe since the Eurozone banking crisis?

How many Remainers are aware that "ever closer Union" is written into the treaty of Rome?

2. You are assuming a clear division between hard-Brexiters, soft-Brexiters and Remainers. All the data appears to point in the other direction. Most people who voted Remain want some immigration controls, most who voted Brexit want access to EU markets. When forced to choose between the two slightly more people, irrc it was 51% chose Immigration Control over access - i.e. the referendum result.

3. You assume that Strike meant you to be emblematic of the Remain camp (and he know you aren't) and Greyblades to be emblematic on the Leave camp (clearly not, given that he holds different views to myself and Furunculus).

[Gilrandir]

There are more a Russians than Germans
Are we still offering samples of grade three arithmetics tasks? Then no one will beat this: there are more Chinese than Russians, Germans and Englishmen taken together.

[Greyblades]

Labour's 'day one' pledge to EU nationals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39698465)


Labour says it would scrap Theresa May's Brexit plans and unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU residents before talks start, if it wins power.

Way to abandon your own people overseas, dumbass.

[Beskar]

Way to abandon your own people overseas, dumbass.

Nope. The EU said it guarantees the right of Brits in Europe on condition that Europeans are protected here.

Theresa May on other hand is holding EU nationals hostage by not agreeing to this, as she wants to get further concessions from the EU for it. In fact, she is willing to go as far as abandoning Brits overseas in exchange to keeping this 'bargaining chip'. EU has said this is a red-line and they want this agreed before any negotiation.

So no, he is not the dumbass.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Labour's 'day one' pledge to EU nationals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39698465)


Way to abandon your own people overseas, dumbass.


I believe their counterpoint would be that citizenship in the EU is protection enough.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. The EU said it guarantees the right of Brits in Europe on condition that Europeans are protected here.

Theresa May on other hand is holding EU nationals hostage by not agreeing to this, as she wants to get further concessions from the EU for it. In fact, she is willing to go as far as abandoning Brits overseas in exchange to keeping this 'bargaining chip'. EU has said this is a red-line and they want this agreed before any negotiation.

So no, he is not the dumbass.

Erm, no.

The Government said MONTHS ago that they would guarantee the rights of #EU nationals so long as Brussels reciprocated. Brussels refused to comment until we formally triggered Article 50.

From last November: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37997698

From July last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36707420

So what you just wrote was diametrically opposed to the facts.

It is Britain that has sought to guarantee reciprocal rights and the EU that has hedged.

[Husar]

There are more a Russians than Germans

There are more Chinese than Russians.


there are more Chinese than Russians, Germans and Englishmen taken together.

Come on, didn't even read to that before I replied, but yeah...

[Montmorency]

There are more Chinese than Russians.



Come on, didn't even read to that before I replied, but yeah...

I was going to say there are more Asians than Chinese east of India/Bangladesh, but it turns out there aren't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_population).

Yet India seems set to overtake China by the end of the decade.

And Georgia's population trend is to double in size within 2500 Years of Darkness.

[Husar]

I was going to say there are more Asians than Chinese east of India/Bangladesh, but it turns out there aren't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_population).

Yet India seems set to overtake China by the end of the decade.

And Georgia's population trend is to double in size within 2500 Years of Darkness.

There are more stars than Chinese?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/revealed-eu-has-secretly-plotting-block-theresa-may-eu-migrants/

So, apparently, despite the British Government showing full willingness to grant resident EU citizens full rights of residency, the EU doesn't believe they can do an early deal - but don't want to be seen as "blocking" such a deal.

In other news, Beskar to select most edible hat.

[Greyblades]

I reccomend a nacho sombrero.

This is why ensuring EU residents without guarenteed reciprication would be a massive mistake; You can not give away your only hostage and expect an opponant of this bad character to just do the same through honour.

[Gilrandir]

So, apparently, despite the British Government showing full willingness to grant resident EU citizens full rights of residency, the EU doesn't believe they can do an early deal - but don't want to be seen as "blocking" such a deal.


And the UK needed to exit the EU to keep the immigrants away? :dizzy2:

[Sarmatian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/revealed-eu-has-secretly-plotting-block-theresa-may-eu-migrants/

So, apparently, despite the British Government showing full willingness to grant resident EU citizens full rights of residency, the EU doesn't believe they can do an early deal - but don't want to be seen as "blocking" such a deal.

In other news, Beskar to select most edible hat.

What's the astonishment here? That EU believes a deal can't be struck as early as June? Or because she mentioned twice that she wants it done by June? OMG, Theresa has spoken twice now, everybody drop whatever you're doing and make it so.

It wouldn't work like that if EU was the Catholic flock and Theresa May the Pope.

[Greyblades]

May's already made the offer of equivalent guarentees of citizenship, she did it months ago. The only thing keeping May from making a deal is the EU not reciprocating, and the article indicates they're refusinv in an attempt to make May look bad.

[Fragony]

And the UK needed to exit the EU to keep the immigrants away? :dizzy2:

It helped didn't it, it's the Brexit's most immediate succes. Out of many to come as the UK is better of without the Brussel and the Eurocrats know that very well.

timber

[Furunculus]

After watching the ECB turn off an on the liquidity taps to Italy until their gov't collapsed from the economic chaos, reading the ugly and duplicitous way that the Eurogroup Working Group bounced Yanis Varoufakis from pillar to post, and watching Cameron's failed attempt to renegotiate from the stated position of staying in the EU, you better believe I want a 'bloody difficult woman' to lead Britain now.

I want a good deal, something equivalent to the Ukraine DCFTA with less ECB supervision, and there is no reason on god's earth why this should not be achievable. But... I am 110% ready to turn Britain into Singapore-on-steroids (relative to the EU), if that is the most effective economic response to EU intransigence. Britain would become a market economy rather than a social democracy, which is not what the left would want, but i'd be quite comfortable with that. It's not what I'd prefer, but freedom has a price.

[Brenus]

After watching the ECB turn off an on the liquidity taps to Italy until their gov't collapsed from the economic chaos, reading the ugly and duplicitous way that the Eurogroup Working Group bounced Yanis Varoufakis from pillar to post, and watching Cameron's failed attempt to renegotiate from the stated position of staying in the EU, you better believe I want a 'bloody difficult woman' to lead Britain now.

I want a good deal, something equivalent to the Ukraine DCFTA with less ECB supervision, and there is no reason on god's earth why this should not be achievable. But... I am 110% ready to turn Britain into Singapore-on-steroids (relative to the EU), if that is the most effective economic response to EU intransigence. Britain would become a market economy rather than a social democracy, which is not what the left would want, but i'd be quite comfortable with that. It's not what I'd prefer, but freedom has a price.

Except of course if you are the one having to work in the sweat shop... And a nice tax-barrier with EU might made you still too competitive for European market, but I am sure Zimbabwe will buy something... And say good-bye to your mobile, tablets, and giant TV screens, but, as say the one who never really suffer of lack of comfort, freedom has a price. Ask Bangladesh...
And by the way, the "bloody difficult woman" changed her mind faster then Billy The Kid draw his gun.

[Furunculus]

Except of course if you are the one having to work in the sweat shop... And a nice tax-barrier with EU might made you still too competitive for European market, but I am sure Zimbabwe will buy something... And say good-bye to your mobile, tablets, and giant TV screens, but, as say the one who never really suffer of lack of comfort, freedom has a price. Ask Bangladesh...
And by the way, the "bloody difficult woman" changed her mind faster then Billy The Kid draw his gun.

on the contrary, we'd end up growing faster than the continent (again).

it would involve a lot of adam smithian creative destruction, the economy would look different in twenty years time, but we'd remain a rich country.

but remember; this is not my preference, merely a fallback position. if all the points in my previous post that you fail to address come to pass.

[Husar]

an opponant of this bad character to just do the same through honour.

:laugh4: So you vote for more competition and then expect an opponent who does not actually oppose you? :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's the astonishment here? That EU believes a deal can't be struck as early as June? Or because she mentioned twice that she wants it done by June? OMG, Theresa has spoken twice now, everybody drop whatever you're doing and make it so.

It wouldn't work like that if EU was the Catholic flock and Theresa May the Pope.

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

[Greyblades]

So you vote for more competition and then expect an opponent who does not actually oppose you?
What?

[Fragony]

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

Might not be pleasant at once but the brexit is political chemotherapy, I hope we follow soon

[Montmorency]

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

It's not really, since by being in a position of leaving you inherently assume or express different goals and priorities - it's a circular proposition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not really, since by being in a position of leaving you inherently assume or express different goals and priorities - it's a circular proposition.

No,it isn't.

We took the action of leaving because we express different priorities - something which has consistently put us at odds with "Eurocrats".

[Montmorency]

No,it isn't.

We took the action of leaving because we express different priorities - something which has consistently put us at odds with "Eurocrats".

But the process of leaving isn't itself continuous with whatever those different priorities may be; it carries its own priorities.

So don't conflate alleged political and economic differences before the decision to leave with how the decision to leave organizes priorities between the parties.

[Gilrandir]

It helped didn't it, it's the Brexit's most immediate succes.

So all the Polish left?

[Fragony]

So all the Polish left?

Not talking about them, that's an issue of course but not having to carry the weight of the consequences of of the childless mutti's birdcall is a blessing, the UK doesn't has to schaff das

[Brenus]

I find quite funny the Tories' media finally discovered than in a divorce/negotiation the other party has as well interests and points to make. As soon May will have made her mind for at least one month, perhaps some real discussions might take place...

[Greyblades]

Avoiding the mass displacement of their own people apparantly isnt one of those interests.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope, individual people are not important - only the survival of the EU dream.

[Pannonian]

Might not be pleasant at once but the brexit is political chemotherapy, I hope we follow soon

Have you applied for permanent residence in the UK yet? Or are you still insisting that the pain will be worth it, even as you live inside the EU and have no intention of leaving the EU?

[Fragony]

Nope, individual people are not important - only the survival of the EU dream.

Make that the comfortable bliss of eurocrats. Eurocrats are in panick and are radicalising, it's getting increasingly grotesque, talk about losing your gravitas.

timber, just a little while

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39789903

And the Bill rises to €100Bn

"There are reports in Brussels that the rising figure might include demands from countries like France and Poland for UK contributions to farm subsidies. The EU may also be planning to refuse to allow the UK a share of the EU's assets including buildings and bank deposits."

On the other hand...

"Zsolt Darvas, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, said a range of factors would have to be taken into account - including the UK's rebate on budget payments and its share of EU borrowing - but he believed a credible figure would be somewhere between 25bn and 65bn euros."

I really hope the EU is super-high balling here.

[Greyblades]

I get paying for access to the single market, but paying just to leave? Christ they are determined to prove farage's mafia comparison true.

[Sir Moody]

I get paying for access to the single market, but paying just to leave? Christ they are determined to prove farage's mafia comparison true.

They are not asking us to pay to leave - they are asking for us to pay up money we pledged to pay over X number of years before we decided to leave.

Basically their argument is we promised to pay this money eventually so now we are leaving we should pay it all upfront now.

I suspect what will happen is we will agree to pay but not all at once (ie keeping the current agreements) and probably not the entire amount.

[Husar]

It's almost like other countries expect you to keep your promises and previously thought of you as trustworthy enough that they planned with the money you promised, but are now unsure about whether you won't just stop paying once you're out since you may seem less trustworthy now. Terrible mafia methods, I know. :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's almost like other countries expect you to keep your promises and previously thought of you as trustworthy enough that they planned with the money you promised, but are now unsure about whether you won't just stop paying once you're out since you may seem less trustworthy now. Terrible mafia methods, I know. :rolleyes:

You read the article I linked?

Rumblings of a bill of 100bn, no accounting for the UK's share of the EU's assets given, you know, how much we paid to build a lot of it.

Once all is said and done I imagine that the actual bill we owe, offset against everything the EU will have to "buy" from us when we leave (like our part-ownership of buildings etc.) the bill will be less than 50bn.

If the EU fails to take into account the cost of the UK's past contributions then the bill will be higher, and unfair.

[Greyblades]

100 bn is over 9 years of our Eu contributions, 13 if we count what we regain through spending. To continue paying for the two years of article 40's enactment is obvious, even paying a year or two extra to help the Eu adjust is fair enough but to cover the next decade of funding, of which we will see none of the benefits ourselves, before we even start talking about single market access, is absurd.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Paying up to the end of the next budget it fair, paying beyond that is not unless we somehow continue to participate in a certain program.

[Sarmatian]

The astonishment is the EU's astonishment at Theresa May's position given it's been her position since at least November.

It makes sense though, if you think about it.

The UK, as a National Government is most concerned about the Rights of its citizens abroad and the Rights of Foreign Nationals working here. The EU, as a Super-National body is most concerned to maintain its budgets in order to meet its liabilities.

So the EU won't discuss resident rights until the "Divorce Bill" is settled whilst the UK won't want to discuss the Bill until it knows the Rights of its citizens are protected.

Basically, you have two different bodies with fundamentally incompatible goals and priorities - which is just another example of why we don't "fit" the EU's version of Europe.

I think the EU just doesn't want to do a deal piece by piece. Which is perfectly normal, as EU holds a stronger hand overall. It's gonna happen often, this preposterous behavior that EU isn't much bothered when UK states it wants something. And every time it happens, conservative press in the UK is gonna throw a tantrum. Better get used to it.

[Fragony]

The UK isn't legally obliged to pay. Not morally either as a net-payer. If the UK kindly says 'dear fuck you' the EU has nothing. It's the ideological EU that is at stake and that frightens eurocrats as the UK will do fine without them, nobody says no to good trade-deals. It's of course more complicated but the joke's on them

[Franconicus]

The UK isn't legally obliged to pay. Not morally either as a net-payer. If the UK kindly says 'dear fuck you' the EU has nothing. It's the ideological EU that is at stake and that frightens eurocrats as the UK will do fine without them, nobody says no to good trade-deals. It's of course more complicated but the joke's on them

I know that you are against the EU, even though I cannot follow your reasoning. However, why do you think that Britain does not have any obligation?
Even though the topic is too complicated for me to fully understand the extend, it seems to be reasonable that Britain keeps on paying its share for the pensions of former EU officers. Is there any reasons they can deny that? That is just one point. What about running cooperation in research? I see that Britain wants to leave, but isn't it worth thinking to bring at least some to an end? Other things like student exchange programs can come to a quick end, I assume.

I understand that the Brexiters want to leave, that they want to leave as soon as possible and that they do not want to have any further obligations. Thing are not as simple, however.

By the way, I also support a hard Brexit as fast as possible with a fair and clear agreement. Day dreaming is not a way to reach this goal. Neither is polemic.

[Fragony]

Being against the EU is a bit of an euphanism, there is no nerve in my system that dispises it upto the marrow of it's bones. That sum they howl for is simply bluff and I hope the UK calls it, there is no way the Brussels can enforce it they have no legal means to do that. The EU is lashing out as hard as they can because they are afraid others will leave as well but they absolutily don't have the best cards, for a trading nation like the UK the Brussels is a hindrance because it wants to protect the barren-eurozone all the while other economies are growing. Nexit please

[Greyblades]

Could someone with more legal expertise track down some of these obligatory agreements?

As it is it the numbers appear rather vague. With the recent doubling it appears undefined and without literature it is currently bound the whims of an overreaching will.

[Fragony]

Could someone with more legal expertise track down some of these obligatory agreements?

As it is it the numbers appear rather vague. With the recent doubling it appears undefined and without literature it is currently bound the whims of an overreaching will.

Your House of Lords have already done it for you, the UK can leave without paying anything at all, and eurocrats know that

[Franconicus]

Could someone with more legal expertise track down some of these obligatory agreements?

As it is it the numbers appear rather vague. With the recent doubling it appears undefined and without literature it is currently bound the whims of an overreaching will.

That is the only reasonable approach. All this - "You have to pay 100 fantastillions" - "I won't pay anything" nonsense is childish and unprofessional. I neither trust the EU numbers nor the British numbers. Is there any reliable source? Haven't these numbers been discussed before the BREXIT?

[Fragony]

That is the only reasonable approach. All this - "You have to pay 100 fantastillions" - "I won't pay anything" nonsense is childish and unprofessional. I neither trust the EU numbers nor the British numbers. Is there any reliable source? Haven't these numbers been discussed before the BREXIT?

Why care, the EU better give the UK a good deal or they don't get anything at all, major loss of face. You buy corrupt people, why negotiate. The UK is in a pretty sweet spot, unlike the EU they can play this hard.

[Franconicus]

Why care, the EU better give the UK a good deal or they don't get anything at all, major loss of face. You buy corrupt people, why negotiate. The UK is in a pretty sweet spot, unlike the EU they can play this hard.

I am not wise enough to understand your point of view but I guess time will tell. :bow:

[Husar]

You read the article I linked?

Rumblings of a bill of 100bn, no accounting for the UK's share of the EU's assets given, you know, how much we paid to build a lot of it.

Once all is said and done I imagine that the actual bill we owe, offset against everything the EU will have to "buy" from us when we leave (like our part-ownership of buildings etc.) the bill will be less than 50bn.

If the EU fails to take into account the cost of the UK's past contributions then the bill will be higher, and unfair.

That's like demanding your children repay all the money you spent raising them once they leave your home.
The assets you built, you paid for willingly at the time and to now demand money back for them is not necessarily part of the contract so to say. I have no idea though whether every country actually owns a share of things like the EU parliament, it's not a corporation after all. Do you own a share of the UK parliament building because you pay taxes to maintain and renovate it? Can you demand money for that from your government when you renounce your citizenship?
The money the EU wants as I understand it is mostly money that was already agreed you would pay. Whether the sum is correct would remain to be seen, we're just at the beginning of the negotiations after all.
I'm entirely relaxed though, unlike you I don't feel like I need to be scared of or angry about the potential results.

[Fragony]

I am not wise enough to understand your point of view but I guess time will tell. :bow:

Pretty simple really, the UK doesn't have to worry about an idelogical project falling apart in the first place. Druncker and his consingliers and enforcers have a bit of a problem; it doesn't. Infimidating the Brits, great idea, they respond so well to that if you do that. If the UK simply refuses to play the EU has lost all credibility. As they should as the EU behaves like omerta

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's like demanding your children repay all the money you spent raising them once they leave your home.
The assets you built, you paid for willingly at the time and to now demand money back for them is not necessarily part of the contract so to say. I have no idea though whether every country actually owns a share of things like the EU parliament, it's not a corporation after all. Do you own a share of the UK parliament building because you pay taxes to maintain and renovate it? Can you demand money for that from your government when you renounce your citizenship?
The money the EU wants as I understand it is mostly money that was already agreed you would pay. Whether the sum is correct would remain to be seen, we're just at the beginning of the negotiations after all.
I'm entirely relaxed though, unlike you I don't feel like I need to be scared of or angry about the potential results.

I don't think there will be a deal, I haven't thought that for a while but I become increasingly certain.

Your analogy is faulty though, because the UK was an equal partner in the EU. The UK's exit should be managed like the dissolution of any partnership, we have to cover our liabilities and you have to buy us out.

Either this is business, as the EU has implied, or it's not.

[Husar]

I don't think there will be a deal, I haven't thought that for a while but I become increasingly certain.

Your analogy is faulty though, because the UK was an equal partner in the EU. The UK's exit should be managed like the dissolution of any partnership, we have to cover our liabilities and you have to buy us out.

Either this is business, as the EU has implied, or it's not.

Again, that depends on the contracts that were signed, I haven't even read them, so I won't say I know how it should work.
If you think you know exactly how it works, I guess that is good for you.

[Franconicus]

Let me tell you a story to make my point clearer:

There was once a father with seven sons. When he died, he left them a house with several apartments. The sons decided to rent the apartments and to share the income. So everyone of them received a pretty good amount of money. Soon, however, the brother discussed about the future. Some said that the house should be sold as soon as possible, others said the brothers should invest money so the worth of the house would raise and they could get more rent. Some said they do not want to change anything. They made a compromise here and then, and although they still made good money, no one was really happy. All seven brothers had wives. The wife of one brother said to him: You should try to get out of the project. Think of what we could do with that money. We could buy us a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. Furthermore you will not have to worry about your stupid brothers. The man replied: You may be right. But now we receive pretty good money each month. The wife said: So what, we can buy our own apartment and rent it. We will still get the money and more. So the man went to his brothers and told them he wants to leave as fast as possible. The others were taken by surprise and asked him why. He said he would buy himself a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. And I will still get a rent each month, probably higher than before. Although some of the brothers doubted that, they agreed to give him his share, but they also told him that he would have to compensate for the obligations. There was a mortgage on the house and a roofer was already told to repair the roof.

(to be continued)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Again, that depends on the contracts that were signed, I haven't even read them, so I won't say I know how it should work.
If you think you know exactly how it works, I guess that is good for you.

I didn't say I know exactly how it works, but my point is valid nonetheless. The UK paid for the construction of EU institutions, both physical and bureaucratic with the expectation we would hold part-ownership in them in perpetuity.

If we do not, in fact, hold part ownership in these institutions that implies that neither do the other EU nations, and that raises disturbing questions.

[Strike For The South]

The moral of the story is women ruin everything and shared property should be under the control of a fiduciary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let me tell you a story to make my point clearer:

There was once a father with seven sons. When he died, he left them a house with several apartments. The sons decided to rent the apartments and to share the income. So everyone of them received a pretty good amount of money. Soon, however, the brother discussed about the future. Some said that the house should be sold as soon as possible, others said the brothers should invest money so the worth of the house would raise and they could get more rent. Some said they do not want to change anything. They made a compromise here and then, and although they still made good money, no one was really happy. All seven brothers had wives. The wife of one brother said to him: You should try to get out of the project. Think of what we could do with that money. We could buy us a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. Furthermore you will not have to worry about your stupid brothers. The man replied: You may be right. But now we receive pretty good money each month. The wife said: So what, we can buy our own apartment and rent it. We will still get the money and more. So the man went to his brothers and told them he wants to leave as fast as possible. The others were taken by surprise and asked him why. He said he would buy himself a house, travel through the world, buy a new car and much more. And I will still get a rent each month, probably higher than before. Although some of the brothers doubted that, they agreed to give him his share, but they also told him that he would have to compensate for the obligations. There was a mortgage on the house and a roofer was already told to repair the roof.

(to be continued)

So the brother who wants to leave, he will have to pay the existing obligations he has to his brothers, yes?

They will have to pay him his share of the value of the house though, and that will have to be calculated based not only on its current worth, but also based on the proportion he paid towards improving the house, so that they could enjoy more rent. Now, this brother who is leaving, he had a better job and had more money coming in, so he had paid more towards the new roof and other improvements than some of the other brothers who did not have as much money.

I like your analogy, but it's not the one the EU is using. Indeed the EU is nor really using any kind of analogy, they just keep raising the figure we have to pay.

[Franconicus]

So the brother who wants to leave, he will have to pay the existing obligations he has to his brothers, yes?

They will have to pay him his share of the value of the house though, and that will have to be calculated based not only on its current worth, but also based on the proportion he paid towards improving the house, so that they could enjoy more rent. Now, this brother who is leaving, he had a better job and had more money coming in, so he had paid more towards the new roof and other improvements than some of the other brothers who did not have as much money.

I like your analogy, but it's not the one the EU is using. Indeed the EU is nor really using any kind of analogy, they just keep raising the figure we have to pay.

Well, that is exactly the point. If the one brother, let's call him Albion, is richer (than most). Then there must have been an agreement in the past that the richer ones should pay more to repair the house. There should also be part of this agreement if those who pay more get a bigger share of the house or not. This is not elemental, but a result of an agreement between the brothers.

I chose a familiar affair because I think that the members of the EU are as close as brothers and because in these familiar affair things usually end up in conflict.
I think it is natural that both sides want to make a good deal, but both sides should also have some good will and common sense. Then the BREXIT should be easy for both sides.

[Beskar]

There is a flaw with the argument. Unfortunately, I don't think the payments are like a house ownership, but more like house rental. So whilst Albion might have contributed more to things like the sofa, and as such, should help offset any payments. However, Albion and the other Brothers have agreed to a rental plan till 2020 on the house. However, with Albion leaving, this leaves a big hole in the rental plan which the other brothers will have to make up this cost. Whilst the brothers will have make do in the future, Albion did agree to pay rent till this time and is breaking the rental contract if he doesn't, so the brothers want him to continue those payments till the agreed time, then afterwards, everything is settled.

On same time, I have no problems with Albion contributing to that rental plan and staying there during this time whilst he is looking for his own place. This might be an alternative to agree to instead of the foreboding "divorce bill", that he simply pays his rents and keeps his room till that cut-off date. If he wants to abandon the room completely regardless, than that is when Divorce bill comes in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from​?

This is an important question.

[Beskar]

So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from​?

This is an important question.

The money goes into private hands of members of the EU. So Farmers in France, Cornwall, UKIP EU Expenses, and so on. It is not tangibly held and labeled "All the Money paid into the EU" or any assets. It has disappeared/gone. Which is why I used renting rather than home ownership.

[Husar]

So, if the members are renting the EU, who owns the EU? Who are they renting it from​?

This is an important question.

No, it is not. If you renounced your citizenship tomorrow, would you expect to get reimbursed by the Queen for the assets you paid for with your taxes? :dizzy2:

If the owners are the people of the EU, then by renouncing your citizenship of the EU you also give up your assets in the EU as ownership of the assets is tied to membership in the club. This does not automatically give you any right to get reimbursed. Next you will be asking for the physical seats of the British delegates to be brought to Britain, including a slice of the building they're in? The EU is a political alliance/construct and not a privately owned corporation, otherwise it might as well be publicly traded and then China could buy it... :rolleyes:

[Montmorency]

Husar and Beskar, it's difficult for me to understand why you are conflating sunk assets with unrealized future obligations.

I suspect you all have very different understandings of what exactly the item here is to be resolved through negotiations. The article PVC brought to our attention at least had something to do with payment from the UK to the EU in settling matters of treaty obligations and mutual holdings or operations.

From a pro-Brexit op-ed (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/03/it-is-to-laugh-at-their-mistake-eus-brexit-bill-claim-now-at-e100-billion/#423dbadd32f8):


The actual mistake they made was to come in too low with their original estimate of €60 billion. For immediately they gave a number we were able to crawl all over it. For example, they are demanding that we pay for contingent liabilities. That is, things which have not happened yet and may never happen. But cough up anyway right now please. Similarly, immediately the demand was made it was pointed out (here as well as other places) that the EU has considerable capital assets which Britain has paid a hefty share of the bill for. That capital should be distributed upon the divorce, quite obviously, and be taken into account as to what the final net sum should be. The current higher sum is being justified by saying that Britain shouldn't get any of that capital back. But then the original €60 billion demand didn't have the capital share being offset either. So it's really not a reasonable changing of the number being demanded.

Similarly, the demand now is that Britain should keep paying for the agricultural subsidies to other countries in the period after Britain has left. Umm, no mateys, that's a bill you're going to have to cover yourselves.

So, as to the €100 billion demand this is really just their realising that they underpitched that original one of €60 billion. So they're now scrambling to find any justification at all so as to raise the claim so that they end up with something close to what they first hoped or. And as I say, that's not how price negotiations go, that first offer is always the top price, not one that can be then increased.

So now at least some of the components are elucidated. This doesn't say much about "contingent liabilities" or the farm subsidies, so we have to look elsewhere for information. We see something about total divestment of mutual capital assets, but that component (leaving aside the claim that divestment was already considered for the original price point) doesn't seem like it should have any direct cost, since it is just the transfer of ownership and management of properties and the like.

Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.

[Husar]

Husar and Beskar, it's difficult for me to understand why you are conflating sunk assets with unrealized future obligations.

I suspect you all have very different understandings of what exactly the item here is to be resolved through negotiations. The article PVC brought to our attention at least had something to do with payment from the UK to the EU in settling matters of treaty obligations and mutual holdings or operations.

From a pro-Brexit op-ed (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/03/it-is-to-laugh-at-their-mistake-eus-brexit-bill-claim-now-at-e100-billion/#423dbadd32f8):



So now at least some of the components are elucidated. This doesn't say much about "contingent liabilities" or the farm subsidies, so we have to look elsewhere for information. We see something about total divestment of mutual capital assets, but that component (leaving aside the claim that divestment was already considered for the original price point) doesn't seem like it should have any direct cost, since it is just the transfer of ownership and management of properties and the like.

Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.

I should just leave the discussion and apologize for saying anything about it in the first place because I have no interest in beginning to calculate any shares and talk in-depth about assets.
But just to explain, that's what I was talking about, he said the UK should pay less money because they have to include a reimbursement for the assets it paid for. My point is that unless they have a contract that states they own a certain percentage of said assets, it's just something they provided as part of their membership and there is no reason to pay them out or anything since the EU is not a privately owned company. Again, unless there is some contract says otherwise. That's just my opinion though, I'm not an international lawyer either and wouldn't want to be one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it is not. If you renounced your citizenship tomorrow, would you expect to get reimbursed by the Queen for the assets you paid for with your taxes? :dizzy2:

Bad example - the Queen already owns the country and all my money (that's why her head is on it).

You might get more mileage out of a comparison to the UK and Scotland leaving, but Scotland is a new drain for the UK where the UK is a major financial supporter of the EU, alongside Germany.


If the owners are the people of the EU, then by renouncing your citizenship of the EU you also give up your assets in the EU as ownership of the assets is tied to membership in the club. This does not automatically give you any right to get reimbursed. Next you will be asking for the physical seats of the British delegates to be brought to Britain, including a slice of the building they're in? The EU is a political alliance/construct and not a privately owned corporation, otherwise it might as well be publicly traded and then China could buy it... :rolleyes:

You might want to look at the history of partitioning of countries, the assigning of assets and debts in that case.

If the Citizens of the EU own the EU institutions collectively then the EU is a Nation-State.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your House of Lords have already done it for you, the UK can leave without paying anything at all, and eurocrats know that

Link?

And is this owing nothing based on some technicality or on the lack of a formal agreement or the EU having somehow abrogated the arrangement through it's behavior.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Husar and Beskar, it's difficult for me to understand why you are conflating sunk assets with unrealized future obligations.

I suspect you all have very different understandings of what exactly the item here is to be resolved through negotiations. The article PVC brought to our attention at least had something to do with payment from the UK to the EU in settling matters of treaty obligations and mutual holdings or operations.

From a pro-Brexit op-ed (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/03/it-is-to-laugh-at-their-mistake-eus-brexit-bill-claim-now-at-e100-billion/#423dbadd32f8):



So now at least some of the components are elucidated. This doesn't say much about "contingent liabilities" or the farm subsidies, so we have to look elsewhere for information. We see something about total divestment of mutual capital assets, but that component (leaving aside the claim that divestment was already considered for the original price point) doesn't seem like it should have any direct cost, since it is just the transfer of ownership and management of properties and the like.

Please post more concrete information so we aren't jumping the gun with wrong assumptions and impertinent analogies.

With contingent liabilities, wouldn't a sidebar treaty to pay 'as and if necessary if something happens over the next X years' suffice? Surely such a thing could be crafted with reasonable safeguards to insure it wasn't being triggered artificially but would allow the UK to fulfill that previous commitment if such a commitment was made. The UK has a better record than many of honoring its word internationally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I should just leave the discussion and apologize for saying anything about it in the first place because I have no interest in beginning to calculate any shares and talk in-depth about assets.
But just to explain, that's what I was talking about, he said the UK should pay less money because they have to include a reimbursement for the assets it paid for. My point is that unless they have a contract that states they own a certain percentage of said assets, it's just something they provided as part of their membership and there is no reason to pay them out or anything since the EU is not a privately owned company. Again, unless there is some contract says otherwise. That's just my opinion though, I'm not an international lawyer either and wouldn't want to be one.

Have to agree with you on this. While contingent future payments or payments scheduled for future contributions after some reasonable period would not be "owing" in the same way, current or previous contributions are pretty much a sunk cost. Until the vote, the UK was an EU member with responsibilities owing as per that arrangement. Reimbursement would be a bit silly, and counting previous required contributions against what is owed (again, the contingency stuff etc. is different) nearly as out of whack.

[Fragony]

Link?

And is this owing nothing based on some technicality or on the lack of a formal agreement or the EU having somehow abrogated the arrangement through it's behavior.

Forgot link my apoligies https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Forgot link my apoligies https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords

Thank you.

This is classic. Throw out a number that is generally guessed to be completely unreasonable but is not without some thin shred of support, so as to force the other bargainer to re-anchor their bargaining range.

Once you have re-anchored their bargaining range a bit, you can then "make concessions" from a different start point and generate a better haggling result.

It's the usual positional bargaining bullshit headgame -- but that is customary in international affairs anyway.


You will note that the positional paper already has a caveat built in to let the EU know it is a bargaining step. Moreover, as it has been officially authored by the Lords, whose position can be over-ridden, it is designed to backed away from as needed.

[Gilrandir]

If the one brother, let's call him Albion, is richer (than most).
Does this brother realize he has some aliens in him (let's call them Scottie and N. Iry) and they can break free if he tries to leave the house that suited them well?

[Greyblades]

Scottie's less interested since trying 3 years ago and N. Iry is likely to tear himself apart if he tries.

[Gilrandir]

Scottie's less interested since trying 3 years ago and N. Iry is likely to tear himself apart if he tries.

Scottie tried it under different circumstances and they voted to remain within the UK which was in the EU. Now that the conditions have changed Nicola is willing to try it again.

[Beskar]

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I cannot remember which thread or where, but I remember saying that the UK is holding EU citizens as hostage and they should agree to an exchange of rights. You disagreed saying it is not happening because the EU won't return them and the government just wants it as a guarantee.

Here is a new latest comment from the chief EU negotiator Michael Barnier. Source
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39820987)He demanded full protection of the rights of some 3.2 million EU citizens living in the UK and the 1.2 million Britons in other EU countries.
"I will not discuss our future relationship with the UK until the 27 member states are reassured that all citizens will be treated properly and humanely," he said.
Brexit should not alter people's daily lives, he went on, and there must be equal treatment between all EU and UK nationals in the UK, as well the inverse.

It is as I suggested it was. EU wants to do an equal exchange, Theresa May is holding EU citizens within the UK and UK citizens in the EU to ransom.

[Greyblades]

Yeah that's crap. If they wanted equivalent exchange why dont they agree to May's offer months ago?


Scottie tried it under different circumstances and they voted to remain within the UK which was in the EU. Now that the conditions have changed Nicola is willing to try it again.

Thier people seem less willing:Support for Scottish independence lower than at 2014 referendum, poll shows (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/support-for-scottish-independence-lower-than-at-2014-referendum-poll-says-a3493511.html)

[Beskar]

Yeah that's crap. If they wanted equivalent exchange why dont they agree to May's offer months ago?

What offer? News to me, she has been openly defiant of such an offer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What offer? News to me, she has been openly defiant of such an offer.

My response to you last time you raised this:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053745683&viewfull=1#post2053745683

There's also the UK Citizens who wanted to sue Junker because he refused to agree to this months ago.

Also in response to you:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053746154&viewfull=1#post2053746154

We've mentioned this several times over the last several pages, what have you been reading? Clearly not the mainstream media.

[Beskar]

My response to you last time you raised this:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053745683&viewfull=1#post2053745683

There's also the UK Citizens who wanted to sue Junker because he refused to agree to this months ago.

Also in response to you:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053746154&viewfull=1#post2053746154

We've mentioned this several times over the last several pages, what have you been reading? Clearly not the mainstream media.

Then it is bad form of the EU. It was probably the fact they were saying one thing publicly whilst saying something else privately.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Barnier is cunning, I'll give him that. Having refused to even countenance discussion of Citizens' Rights as recently as last week, and certainly not before the "Brexit Bill is settled" he now turns it around and makes a show of demanding exactly what the British Government has been asking for for over six months. However, he makes a deal contingent on us continuing to accept the rulings of the ECJ and links it to Freedom of Movement.

Contrast this with the UK saying, just last week, it wants to enshrine the Rights of resident EU Citizens in Primary Legislation, something it expects to be able to basically wave through given all parties in the UK are in agreement on the topic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then it is bad form of the EU. It was probably the fact they were saying one thing publicly whilst saying something else privately.

I think it has literally taken a month for you to recognise this.

May I suggest you chew more Telegraph and smoke more Gruniard? Just don't swallow or inhale.

[Sarmatian]

While I have no doubt that it fits the Evil EU narrative pro Brexit voters are so fond of, I'm pretty certain that's not the case.

A cursory check shows that EU feels UK's guarantees are not good enough, as the process would take more than a decade under current rules, and leave around a third (roughly a million people) EU nationals currently living in UK without resident rights. So, they want better guarantees.

Such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence. Citizens should be able to exercise their rights through smooth and simple administrative procedures.

As BBC analyst has said

This reflects concern among EU member states that the UK is underestimating the technical difficulties of reaching an agreement on the issue of citizens' rights. There have to be legal guarantees, one senior official said, not just a gentlemen's agreement. And, at the moment of course, the ultimate legal authority for EU citizens is the European Court of Justice. That makes this a tricky political problem in the UK, not least because some of these issues will still be relevant decades into the future. The EU is also concerned that the UK Home Office is placing and will continue to place bureaucratic obstacles in the path of EU citizens trying to secure their future - this is a warning shot across British bows.

They want real guarantees (legal obligations) that could be independently enforced.

There's a nice Financial Times article (https://www.ft.com/content/7c008997-e2a9-360d-89a3-1646dcbdae0f) on it, which concludes


However, the UK and the EU do not seem far apart in principle, and both agree that the matter is urgent. There can be no serious doubt that an agreement can be made within two years, if Britain accepts the EU’s demands. But it cannot be done at speed or without the detail being worked out, and the UK does not seem to realise this yet.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While I have no doubt that it fits the Evil EU narrative pro Brexit voters are so fond of, I'm pretty certain that's not the case.

A cursory check shows that EU feels UK's guarantees are not good enough, as the process would take more than a decade under current rules, and leave around a third (roughly a million people) EU nationals currently living in UK without resident rights. So, they want better guarantees.

The UK has expressed a willingness to pass legislation guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, this does not constitute a "gentleman's agreement" but the same level of protection as enjoyed by British and Commonwealth Citizen for their own rights.

Britain has no Constitution by design, for the EU to demand that the UK be subject to the ECJ in this would give EU citizens greater theoretical protection that British Citizens whilst at the same time being totally unenforceable because we will no longer be part of the EU or Single Market.

There's a consensus, among Leave and Remain, that there's no point leaving the EU if Parliament is not Sovereign.


As BBC analyst has said

They want real guarantees (legal obligations) that could be independently enforced.

There's a nice Financial Times article (https://www.ft.com/content/7c008997-e2a9-360d-89a3-1646dcbdae0f) on it, which concludes

The bit you didn't bold in your last quote was "if Britain accepts the EU’s demands." which is unlikely to happen.n It's also worth pointing out that for the average Brit, including all the Leave voters here this IS a simple question. One merely determines what rights EU Citizens are to be afforded and then one passes a law giving them those rights.

This is how we run our democracy, for the EU to demand more of us is rather illustrative of why we left.

Two final points -

One notes that less than a week ago the EU was unwilling to discuss this issue, so this sudden outrage feels more than a little manufactured given that we were previously told nothing else would be discussed before the Brexit bill.

Ironically, it's likely that regardless of the agreement with the EU that EU Citizens resident before Article 50 was triggered will be offered favourable rights of residency even if the EU does not reciprocate because theire is no alternative which would be conscionable to the British Public.

[Sarmatian]

The last time you spoke about this, you said EU wasn't interested in citizens rights. They consider it a priority, they just can not agree until they know what they are agreeing to. It is a fair point to argue whether that is acceptable to Britain, but your previous statements were completely false.

May I suggest reading less Telegraph?

[Fragony]

Seems like a draw at the moment. It's serious business but I can't help finding it entertaining, pure poker eyes (EU will lose). Eurocrats are so narcistic arrogant and dumb, what they really are is for everybody to see, they are no different from ordinary mobsters.

prediction, the UK is going to pay a reduced amount, and keep acces to the market. The EU is being the bully so no lose of face for the UK. The 'hostages' will have nothing to worry about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The last time you spoke about this, you said EU wasn't interested in citizens rights. They consider it a priority, they just can not agree until they know what they are agreeing to. It is a fair point to argue whether that is acceptable to Britain, but your previous statements were completely false.

May I suggest reading less Telegraph?

Actually, what I said was that the EU seemed more interested in the "Brexit Bill" than citizens' rights based on the fact they had added €40 Billion to the former and were unwilling to talk about the latter but, according to leaked documents, did not want to be seen to "block" a deal.

Now a week later the Chief Negotiator explodes in Gallic Outrage that we will not guarantee citizens' rights when we wanted to discuss this issue months ago.

I can't read your FT Article. Can you compare the date-stamps on the articles with the date-stamp on my last post on the issue?

This: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/26/brexit-eu-leaders-to-demand-may-respect-citizens-residency-rights is the first rumbling about the issue from the EU side, 26/04/17. I clearly missed that at the time but my last post on that topic was 02/05/17, six days later and most of the intervening time was taken up with the EU asking for a bigger slice of pie. Moreover, the EU negotiating position appears to refer to rights EU citizens should already have. What's more this looks like a case of EU Commission asnd EU Council of Ministers respectively playing bad cop/good cop on this issue.

[Husar]

It's already a typical divorce at this point. :drama3:

[Fragony]

You are even in a better spot mia muca, the EU can't overrule deals that were already made under the EEC. I would lay my dick in their empty hands but that's just not my thing but to each their own. We have a saying here, cornered cats make odd jumps. Who do you think the cornered cat really is? Do you really think it's the UK? Beggars can't be choosers as you Eglish-native speakers like to say.

It's all kinda biblical even,what was it 'esperanto',a unversal language, ah yes it was the tower of Babel. Good jokes never get old

[Gilrandir]

Thier people seem less willing:Support for Scottish independence lower than at 2014 referendum, poll shows (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/support-for-scottish-independence-lower-than-at-2014-referendum-poll-says-a3493511.html)

Oh, really?


It puts backing for independence at 44 per cent, one point lower than when the question was put to Scotland two-and-a-half years ago, while a majority (56 per cent) would vote to remain in the United Kingdom.

Is it what we call "within statistical error margin"?

[Greyblades]

Perhaps, however;
The poll suggests a majority of Scots agree with the Prime Minister, with 51 per cent saying they do not want another referendum to take place in the next few years.

Almost a third (32 per cent) supported having a referendum in the next year or two while the Brexit negotiations are ongoing, while around 18% backed another ballot about two years from now when negotiations are complete.

However 44 per cent said they expected one to take place within the next five to 10 years, up six points since Panelbase asked the question in January, and nine points since last September.The referendum of 2014 had support from both sides as the remainers wanted the issue put to rest. Now the amount who want another referendum has lost the majority.

[Sarmatian]

Actually, what I said was that the EU seemed more interested in the "Brexit Bill" than citizens' rights based on the fact they had added €40 Billion to the former and were unwilling to talk about the latter but, according to leaked documents, did not want to be seen to "block" a deal.

Don't want to be seen blocking a deal doesn't mean that they're actually blocking a deal.


Now a week later the Chief Negotiator explodes in Gallic Outrage that we will not guarantee citizens' rights when we wanted to discuss this issue months ago.

No negotiation before the Article 50 is triggered. Certainly that couldn't have caught anyone by surprise.


I can't read your FT Article. Can you compare the date-stamps on the articles with the date-stamp on my last post on the issue?

I can't read it now either. Asks for a subscription. Weird.


This: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/26/brexit-eu-leaders-to-demand-may-respect-citizens-residency-rights is the first rumbling about the issue from the EU side, 26/04/17. I clearly missed that at the time but my last post on that topic was 02/05/17, six days later and most of the intervening time was taken up with the EU asking for a bigger slice of pie. Moreover, the EU negotiating position appears to refer to rights EU citizens should already have. What's more this looks like a case of EU Commission asnd EU Council of Ministers respectively playing bad cop/good cop on this issue.

It's more like waiting for Article 50 to be triggered and then waiting for instructions from European Parliament.

No grand conspiracy. But Telegraph readers were happy that their prejudices had been reinforced.

[Fragony]

Don't tear threads apart Sams, you are smart enough to understand what's going on.

[Greyblades]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNxD0OFstQ

Junker's been a tad self destructive of late.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"We must continue, we must forge ahead."

Forward in the service of Rome, Fratres, but without Consuls or an Augustus.

[Fragony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKNxD0OFstQ

Junker's been a tad self destructive of late.

A tad? That facelicker who is never sober has always been self-destructive, it's a disgusting guy. It's good that drunk people tend to speak the truth, so how the ultra-undemocratic Brussels thinks is for everybody to see

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps, however;The referendum of 2014 had support from both sides as the remainers wanted the issue put to rest. Now the amount who want another referendum has lost the majority.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on your vantage point) the polled people don't decide whether to have a referendum or not. They delegated this responsibility to the current authorities (until the next elections). If Nicola decides on holding the referendum, she will do it (and imagine what arguments will be voiced by secessionists).

[Greyblades]

To call a referendum she would need both houses of parliament and lords' permission, and May would choose the date.

Without majority popular approval for a referendum to take place May would be justified in denying them a second referendum so close to the last.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://youtu.be/rvYuoWyk8iU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYuoWyk8iU)

Still true.

[Montmorency]

I identify my national self-interest as Apache attack helicopter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't you mean "selling Apache Helicopter"?

[Greyblades]

There's a triggered joke in there somewhere.

[Montmorency]

It was an "identity politics" parallel.

[Gilrandir]

Without majority popular approval for a referendum to take place May would be justified in denying them a second referendum so close to the last.

"Close" is a relative notion. I don't think the time span between the referenda is stipulated by some law. Moreover, Scotland may state changing the international status of the UK (against the will of the Scots) as a reason for a new referendum. So if Nicola is really determined to get a referendum and not just trying to get favorable concessions from London (much as Cameron did with the EU) she should popularize it within her realm.

[Greyblades]

It's not a legal issue it is a public patience issue and as exhibited by the poll public patience is against referendums in the immediate future despite such arguments as change in status. This 69% majority against a referendum before brexit is done gives May carte blanche to ignore sturgeon for at least two years.

[Gilrandir]

It's not a legal issue it is a public patience issue and as exhibited by the poll public patience is against referendums in the immediate future despite such arguments as change in status. This 69% majority against a referendum before brexit is done gives May carte blanche to ignore sturgeon for at least two years.

In the article 51% was mentioned, not 69%. And this is a precarious majority, easily overcome given proper PR campaign.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Close" is a relative notion. I don't think the time span between the referenda is stipulated by some law. Moreover, Scotland may state changing the international status of the UK (against the will of the Scots) as a reason for a new referendum. So if Nicola is really determined to get a referendum and not just trying to get favorable concessions from London (much as Cameron did with the EU) she should popularize it within her realm.

Doesn't this just transform then into a Alba version of the Quebec separation referenda ad nauseum stuff?

[Pannonian]

Doesn't this just transform then into a Alba version of the Quebec separation referenda ad nauseum stuff?

The Leave the EU campaigners promised before the 2016 referendum that they'd continue to campaign to leave if they lost. The Tory right have the situation exactly as they want it, so they're now arguing that any more referendums would be against the will of the people.

[Greyblades]

Chronologically the SNP started the trend of bad losership in these matters. In the capacity for bitterness on the other hand would tie the SNP and remain quite evenly.

[Gilrandir]

Doesn't this just transform then into a Alba version of the Quebec separation referenda ad nauseum stuff?

Depends on the determination of those at power who would like to initiate referenda until they get the result they want.

[Gilrandir]

I call it exitmania. The UK wants to exit the exit negotiations:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/davis-warns-britain-will-quit-talks-if-eu-demands-100bn-h9cqqtsxc