EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When exactly did the Irish government undertake terror in the UK? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or really that ignorant of events that occurred before the EU was founded? Does the Good Friday agreement ring a bell? IRA? The Provosts? The Troubles?

---

In the UK, but you said it's an EU problem. Are you saying they will blame the EU and blow up people in Berlin and Paris if they don't get what they want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The Irish want no border. The UK doesn't want a border. The EU insists that there is one. It really is that simple.

---

That's a blatant lie. The EU does not want there to be a border. The UK wants there to be a border and that's why it triggered Brexit in the first place. Even with Brexit, the EU is willing not to have a border, but there are conditions since you can't just get a deal that noone else gets either. The one who keeps refusing any deal where there is no border is the UK.
You're basically saying all the other 27 countries have to give up on their idea of what the EU should be or else the Irish are going to start a terror campaign against us because you will block any sensible deal. That's just blackmail, nothing else. You're trying to make 27 other countries some kind of colony that has to bow to your imperial will because you're the only ones who know what's right.

You know what? I'd rather pay a bit more in taxes so we can reimburse Ireland for their losses and watch you struggle in isolation than give in to this type of blackmailing nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

In the UK, but you said it's an EU problem. Are you saying they will blame the EU and blow up people in Berlin and Paris if they don't get what they want?

That's a blatant lie. The EU does not want there to be a border. The UK wants there to be a border and that's why it triggered Brexit in the first place. Even with Brexit, the EU is willing not to have a border, but there are conditions since you can't just get a deal that noone else gets either. The one who keeps refusing any deal where there is no border is the UK.
You're basically saying all the other 27 countries have to give up on their idea of what the EU should be or else the Irish are going to start a terror campaign against us because you will block any sensible deal. That's just blackmail, nothing else. You're trying to make 27 other countries some kind of colony that has to bow to your imperial will because you're the only ones who know what's right.

You know what? I'd rather pay a bit more in taxes so we can reimburse Ireland for their losses and watch you struggle in isolation than give in to this type of blackmailing nonsense.

---

Never mind the EU. At the current level of preparedness, the UK won't even qualify for WTO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's just blackmail, nothing else. You're trying to make little old britain some kind of colony that has to bow to your imperial will because you're the only ones who know what's right.

You know what? I'd rather see the City take a hit and watch the eurozone struggle to finance growth than give in to this type of blackmailing nonsense.

---

hmmm, yes, i do agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

hmmm, yes, i do agree.

---

The EU isn't blackmailing anyone, it's just enforcing rules it has had for years now. Britain can choose between open borders and closed borders, but Britain wants something in between that the EU simply doesn't offer to anyone.
You're saying that's not fair, but then you'd also have to ask Ferrari to offer a 10,000€ car because people only getting a choice between no Ferrari and the really expensive Ferraris is not fair. It's a free world, you can join any other trade bloc if you don't like it.
It's not blackmail to enforce the same rules for all members, you're twisting things here to get an exception that noone else ever got.

Dutch activate 'hard Brexit' plan and blame 'a lack of clarity' from the UK

Quote:

---

Cabinet finance minister Menno Snel wrote that 930 would be required in the event of a "no deal" Brexit, which is "conceivable" after "difficult" first-phase negotiations.

Perhaps as shocking is that 750 extra customs agents would be required even in the event of a Canada-style free trade deal with a transition period. Fifty have already been paid for.

As the finance ministry calculates it takes between nine and 22 months to train a customs officer, the Dutch government has green-lighted immediate recruiting, training, tendering of contracts and organising of housing.

Mr Snel wrote to Dutch MPs: "The divisions within the British Conservative Party and the remaining lack of clarity about the British input continue to impede the smooth running of the negotiations.

"It is therefore clear that the scenario that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and without a transitional period is still conceivable.

"The red lines of the UK for the future relationship with the EU (leaving the internal market and customs union) mean that the trade relationship can not go much further than a trade agreement like the one the EU has concluded with Canada."

The Netherlands has traditionally been seen as a key ally of the UK, and stands to be among the most impacted by any radical change to UK-EU trading conditions - as when imports and exports are combined it is the UK's third largest trade partner.

---

This from one of the more Anglophilic countries in the EU, that has no land borders with the UK. How many customs officers will the UK need, and how far are they into preparations for separation along the red lines laid down by the UK government?

BTW Frag, how practical is Nexit now that you've seen what Brexit entails?

Very unlikely to happen but one can hope. It isn't that we can't, slapping tarrfis on us would only make their own products more expensive to make, their food will become more expensive as well, but the political will isn't there. Not yet at least a lot of people have kinda had it with Brussels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The EU isn't blackmailing anyone, it's just enforcing rules it has had for years now. Britain can choose between open borders and closed borders, but Britain wants something in between that the EU simply doesn't offer to anyone.
You're saying that's not fair, but then you'd also have to ask Ferrari to offer a 10,000€ car because people only getting a choice between no Ferrari and the really expensive Ferraris is not fair. It's a free world, you can join any other trade bloc if you don't like it.
It's not blackmail to enforce the same rules for all members, you're twisting things here to get an exception that noone else ever got.

---

It is not blackmail. It is not a lie. It is very simple.

The EU will only have no borders with those which follow all their rules. That is their main, nay only, consideration.
The Irish don't want a border and this is their main consideration. The UK would like this too.
This was one of the clear things the UK wanted, and the EU clearly refused.

It is not blackmail it is merely giving on very clear and simple example of how the EU increasingly enforces rules that the member states are not thrilled about - and continues since the population of countries are not allowed to have a say - as the French President also mentioned recently the French would have probably voted to leave if they had had the chance.

It is not a trade bloc. It is a disguised state. Trade blocks, be that NAFTA, TPP or almost any other you mention do not extort money to be part of. Many might have joint standards to the quality of goods of course.

I personally am fine with a border between the two states. I am equally fine with Northern Ireland being given to Ireland - and good riddance. As long as there was some sort of structure protecting the West coast of the UK from Atlantic storms I would rather Ireland was not there.

Ireland, just like Scotland both want to have their cake and eat it in their own way. Ireland wants to have frictionless trade with an important country whilst also being part of the EU. Scotland wanted to have independence from England (where they are over represented both in Westminster as well as having their own parliament - and even get a greater per capita share of funds) to become a EU member state since they would have to otherwise float a new currency.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is not blackmail. It is not a lie. It is very simple.

The EU will only have no borders with those which follow all their rules. That is their main, nay only, consideration.
The Irish don't want a border and this is their main consideration. The UK would like this too.
This was one of the clear things the UK wanted, and the EU clearly refused.

It is not blackmail it is merely giving on very clear and simple example of how the EU increasingly enforces rules that the member states are not thrilled about - and continues since the population of countries are not allowed to have a say - as the French President also mentioned recently the French would have probably voted to leave if they had had the chance.

It is not a trade bloc. It is a disguised state. Trade blocks, be that NAFTA, TPP or almost any other you mention do not extort money to be part of. Many might have joint standards to the quality of goods of course.

I personally am fine with a border between the two states. I am equally fine with Northern Ireland being given to Ireland - and good riddance. As long as there was some sort of structure protecting the West coast of the UK from Atlantic storms I would rather Ireland was not there.

Ireland, just like Scotland both want to have their cake and eat it in their own way. Ireland wants to have frictionless trade with an important country whilst also being part of the EU. Scotland wanted to have independence from England (where they are over represented both in Westminster as well as having their own parliament - and even get a greater per capita share of funds) to become a EU member state since they would have to otherwise float a new currency.

~:smoking:

---

For mostly sentimental reasons, I am a "One Ireland" type. I do not have quite the negative view rory does.

Essentially, I think his summary is correct, however. All of the political entities involved are attempting that political classic of both possessing an intact cake and consuming it at the same time.

RofI wants to stay in the EU but with their convenient open border to Ulster.
Scotland wants to be in the EU without, entirely, divorcing themselves from the UK.
England wants out of the EU but wants to retain all of the good components of the common market.
The EU wants to function as a federal state without taking on all of the responsibilities of such a sovereign state.
The USA wants NATO to do what supports the USA's interests but wants NATO to pay more for the privilege.

Having/eating is THE political goal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

For mostly sentimental reasons, I am a "One Ireland" type. I do not have quite the negative view rory does.

Essentially, I think his summary is correct, however. All of the political entities involved are attempting that political classic of both possessing an intact cake and consuming it at the same time.

RofI wants to stay in the EU but with their convenient open border to Ulster.
Scotland wants to be in the EU without, entirely, divorcing themselves from the UK.
England wants out of the EU but wants to retain all of the good components of the common market.
The EU wants to function as a federal state without taking on all of the responsibilities of such a sovereign state.
The USA wants NATO to do what supports the USA's interests but wants NATO to pay more for the privilege.

Having/eating is THE political goal!

---

Not everyone. Remainers like me just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today, with political decisions that can be reversed with a new electoral cycle. Whatever you may feel about Trump, barring nuclear holocaust, that is what you will still have. We wanted things to be reasonably like today because there were oodles of evidence that exiting the EU will be difficult in the extreme. Evidence that the Leave campaign dismissed as Project Fear, because the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, so they said.

I'm still waiting for solutions to the JIT processes that British manufacturing is based on. The Leavers have said that the UK coped before accession to the EEC, and will cope once again. Does this also mean returning to the problems that they had prior to joining the EEC, such as shifts of workers on paid idle time waiting for components to arrive so that the next step can be undertaken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The EU wants to function as a federal state without taking on all of the responsibilities of such a sovereign state.

---

How do you arrive at this particular conclusion?

People like Fragony think it is taking over too many things already and wants more and more, yet you say it does not want all the responsibilities. Why then does it often scold national states for failing their responsibilities? Does that not even mean it takes over responsibilities that the national states do not want?
As examples for this I would bring Ireland: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/t...u-ireland.html
Germany: https://www.thelocal.de/20171115/eu-...-cities-report
(Germany #2:) http://www.dw.com/en/eu-sues-germany...zer/a-19225653
Poland: http://www.dw.com/en/can-the-eu-save...est/a-40450894

I would claim that in every case above, the EU is absolutely correct and the nation states are failing in their duties/responsibilities in one form or another. Isn't the reason that the EU does not get more responsibilities more about countries like the UK not wanting to give it any more because they fear giving up their own sovereignty will lead all the other European citizens to ruin their country somehow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

How do you arrive at this particular conclusion?

People like Fragony think it is taking over too many things already and wants more and more, yet you say it does not want all the responsibilities. Why then does it often scold national states for failing their responsibilities? Does that not even mean it takes over responsibilities that the national states do not want?
As examples for this I would bring Ireland: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/t...u-ireland.html
Germany: https://www.thelocal.de/20171115/eu-...-cities-report
(Germany #2:) http://www.dw.com/en/eu-sues-germany...zer/a-19225653
Poland: http://www.dw.com/en/can-the-eu-save...est/a-40450894

I would claim that in every case above, the EU is absolutely correct and the nation states are failing in their duties/responsibilities in one form or another. Isn't the reason that the EU does not get more responsibilities more about countries like the UK not wanting to give it any more because they fear giving up their own sovereignty will lead all the other European citizens to ruin their country somehow?

---

Such as the primary argument for Brexit as given by Leave voters, immigration. Freedom of Movement is the most cited reason for Leave, with stories about eastern Europeans leeching off the British state and so on. Yet the EU already allows for each state to act to prevent this from happening, and other countries do just that. The body that's failing the British state over this argument is the British government, which has taken no such action and has chosen to take no such action. Not the EU. PFH once said that he knew this was all the fault of the British government and not the EU, but that he was voting Leave anyway because he wanted to remove the scapegoat for the government's failings.

@Pannonian:

You've been consistent. You want the UK to be part of the EU, and you've been willing to accept the oversight effect the EU exerts as the price of all the advantages gained by membership in the Union both economically and in terms of stability. You have been clear on this. You have stated that many of the leading voices for the "Leave" movement were either willfully lying to the public to sway votes or blithely ignorant of the real costs of leaving or in a few cases both. From the evidence you've marshalled in making your points, it seems clear that at least some of the "Leave" leaders were making things up whole cloth.

@Husar:

I am sure sovereignty concerns by states in the EU are part of the reason for how it is developing and exercising responsibilities. I do not see the kind of wild expansion of control @Fragony sees. On the other hand, the EU does seem to take up the role of dictating economic choices and is, very clearly, letting the UK twist in the wind over it's choice to exit (though I will stipulate that the UK has not been blameless from their side of the exit process discussions by any means). The EU does not, however, seem willing to take up mutual defense issues for their collective, letting NATO (USA) continue to play the lead on this. The EU has not taken any kind of collective action in response to the refugee crisis resulting from (at least in part) the Syrian civil war. NATO was allowed to half-bake the effort in Libya. To me it reads as though, rather than simply maintaining the common market, the EU has taken up governance oversight for all the members...yet isn't fully embracing that.

I will submit that I am an outsider looking in, so I may be getting the wrong impression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'm still waiting for solutions to the JIT processes that British manufacturing is based on. The Leavers have said that the UK coped before accession to the EEC, and will cope once again. Does this also mean returning to the problems that they had prior to joining the EEC, such as shifts of workers on paid idle time waiting for components to arrive so that the next step can be undertaken?

---

Mountain of chicken spotted going to waste at DHL depot amid KFC crisis

Quote:

---

A small mountain of chicken has been spotted going to waste in a DHL depot as KFC becomes embroiled in a nationwide delivery blunder. Around 700 of the company’s 870 stores in the UK have shut after a huge failure at delivery firm DHL left restaurants without any chicken. It has been claimed the delivery chaos is costing the firm £1 million a day while it is feared staff on zero hour contacts will miss out on pay. The picture taken at the depot in Rugby – described as ‘total mayhem’ – shows tray after tray of chicken piled high in delivery baskets, waiting to be loaded onto lorries. The company was forced to start closing stores on Saturday following a delivery problem believed to have started on Wednesday following an accident on the M6.

---

The above is what happens when industries built on JIT processes have delays somewhere along the logistical line. The UK government's current level of preparedness is promising the above, for all industries across the UK that have supply lines that cross the UK border. The Dutch government has already commented on the massive numbers of additional customs officers the UK will need, and given their estimated time of around 2 years needed to train an officer, no sign that the UK is doing so in time. Millions of lorries pass through Dover every year between the UK and France, but there are no arrangements to handle delays that will eventuate from changed customs arrangements. And the UK government has ruled out customs union.

What is the UK's plan? Or is it going to just blunder on into chaos and continue to blame the EU for the chaos it has chosen for itself?

You know Pan's you put your toes in the wrong part of the water. If you don't see that the EU is going to fall apart in a few years... New deals will be made. You can never be in the same river twice, nothing is ever still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You know Pan's you put your toes in the wrong part of the water. If you don't see that the EU is going to fall apart in a few years... New deals will be made. You can never be in the same river twice, nothing is ever still.

---

Absolutely none of what you've predicted would happen to the EU has come to pass. Most of what the experts have predicted would happen on Brexit have come to pass. You've been pitching meaningless platitudes. The experts have been giving concrete predictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Absolutely none of what you've predicted would happen to the EU has come to pass. Most of what the experts have predicted would happen on Brexit have come to pass. You've been pitching meaningless platitudes. The experts have been giving concrete predictions.

---

The UK is doing just fine. Let me put it this way, you fought two world wars with the country that is really now the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is not blackmail. It is not a lie. It is very simple.

The EU will only have no borders with those which follow all their rules. That is their main, nay only, consideration.
The Irish don't want a border and this is their main consideration. The UK would like this too.
This was one of the clear things the UK wanted, and the EU clearly refused.

---

Quote:

---

Meanwhile former World Trade Organisation chief Pascal Lamy argued that whatever Brexit option was chosen "will necessitate a border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

"There will have to be a border", he told the Commons Brexit committee, because checks will have to be carried out on goods and people.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460

Brexiteers blaming the EU for everything. Even it's the WTO, not the EU, that insists on borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460

Brexiteers blaming the EU for everything. Even it's the WTO, not the EU, that insists on borders.

---

Unless there is an agreement. Ireland wants one a lot more than most of the UK does since where Ireland currently trades.

So, to reiterate. Countries on both sides want there not to be a border. For any two countries they'd have an agreement - and hence there would not be one since this is allowed under WTO rules.

So... if it not the UK or Ireland then who exactly is it?

The reasons for the EU might be very clear and make sense. But the only party to the situation which insists on a border is the EU.

It is not "blame" it is just pointing out the obvious.

~:smoking:

The EU does not want there to be a border, it just wants the UK to accept the fair terms for an open border. The UK refuses to accept the fair terms and wants a special access that would be incredibly unfair to other countries that get open borders to the EU. The whole problem only exists in the first place because the UK wants new restrictions and closed borders. Again, the EU didn't hold a referendum where people argued the border to the UK is too open, but the UK had a referendum about whether the borders to the EU were too open and voted that they were indeed too open. To now go and claim the EU wants borders to be closed is simply ridiculous. The only ones who want to close something are the UK:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-refer...-irish-border/

Quote:

---

It depends what restrictions the UK puts on EU immigration
Claiming this won’t change after Brexit assumes that these measures will still be enough to police the open border. Leave campaigners pointed out during the referendum that the Common Travel Area was in place before the EU even existed, and this has since been echoed by the Brexit Secretary.

This is true, but there’s never been a situation where Ireland accepted free movement of people and the UK didn’t.

If the UK wants to put restrictions on EU immigration or short visits, that might generate more illegal cross-border movement. At the moment, Operation Gull only has to catch unauthorised migrants from non-EU countries.

---

See, it's the UK that wants to close something...

Again, just because it can apparently not be repeated often enough: It's the UK that wants borders closed on terms that benefit only the UK. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't get free stuff in the competitive world it voted for so it begins to whine like an entitled rich kid and tries to blame others for not getting more entitlements shoved up its arse for free.

Edit: And while you're at it, you can also create border controls around London and to Scotland if you get a special deal for Northern Ireland: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1DY24H

I wonder what the London-UK border will be like, with British border agents on both sides to keep the filthy EU people contained in the London area... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Unless there is an agreement. Ireland wants one a lot more than most of the UK does since where Ireland currently trades.

So, to reiterate. Countries on both sides want there not to be a border. For any two countries they'd have an agreement - and hence there would not be one since this is allowed under WTO rules.

So... if it not the UK or Ireland then who exactly is it?

The reasons for the EU might be very clear and make sense. But the only party to the situation which insists on a border is the EU.

It is not "blame" it is just pointing out the obvious.

~:smoking:

---

It's the British PM who's set out the red lines, that govern what kind of agreement is possible. Both the EU and the TWO have set out what kind of agreement is possible given those red lines. They've set out a number of possible options for the UK to choose between. The need for an agreement was triggered by a British action, namely the referendum. If you don't like the consequences, change your mind about what that means.

"If you break it, you own it." When will Brexiteers take responsibility for their own actions? It's not like the rest of us asked for this chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The EU does not want there to be a border, it just wants the UK to accept the fair terms for an open border. The UK refuses to accept the fair terms and wants a special access that would be incredibly unfair to other countries that get open borders to the EU. The whole problem only exists in the first place because the UK wants new restrictions and closed borders. Again, the EU didn't hold a referendum where people argued the border to the UK is too open, but the UK had a referendum about whether the borders to the EU were too open and voted that they were indeed too open. To now go and claim the EU wants borders to be closed is simply ridiculous. The only ones who want to close something are the UK:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-refer...-irish-border/



See, it's the UK that wants to close something...

Again, just because it can apparently not be repeated often enough: It's the UK that wants borders closed on terms that benefit only the UK. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't get free stuff in the competitive world it voted for so it begins to whine like an entitled rich kid and tries to blame others for not getting more entitlements shoved up its arse for free.

Edit: And while you're at it, you can also create border controls around London and to Scotland if you get a special deal for Northern Ireland: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1DY24H

I wonder what the London-UK border will be like, with British border agents on both sides to keep the filthy EU people contained in the London area... :rolleyes:

---

There's already a physical border around the London area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There's already a physical border around the London area.

---

I wonder what you mean, does the city have a new city wall or is there some topological thing I'm not aware of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I wonder what you mean, does the city have a new city wall or is there some topological thing I'm not aware of?

---

M25. Only a few small bits lie outside the ring road.

And the EU has called the UK's bluff on the Irish border. They'd come to a sort of agreement last December, only for Davis to disclaim it within a day or two, thus showing what the UK's word is worth. Now the agreement they'd reached to push talks along will no longer be kept, as the UK can plainly not be trusted. It's up to the UK to come up with a workable solution, or there will not be talks. No more platitudes as May and co have purely dealt with thus far. Concrete solutions, or no talks.

And if any Brexiteers want to accuse the EU of punishing the UK; it's the UK's choice to do what it's done. This is the natural consequences of the UK's choice, and it was known before the referendum, as Major and Blair had warned. This is part and parcel of Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And if any Brexiteers want to accuse the EU of punishing the UK; it's the UK's choice to do what it's done.

---

I think to some extent this blaming is a ruse. They're trying to use the kind-heartedness against the EU the same way they complain about foreigners doing it to UK citizens. They argued for competitiveness and one way for them to be competitive is to cry crocodile tears to get what they want. And that's one reason I wouldn't even give them the time of the day. If someone says "we're better off with competition" I'd like to compete them into the ground and not stop when they're already crying. It's simply better for the EU now to outcompete Britain and rightfully gain all the jobs, trade, etc. it can. I mean, this socialist union is bad for capitalism, we have to compete. If Britain cannot keep up, it's not my problem, shouldn't be so lazy and work harder.

:smoking:

You might be wrong on where the crying will be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You might be wrong on where the crying will be

---

Possibly, but as Pannonian's comments have pointed up, the UK has, to date at least, not shown a lot of success in establishing new trade links or building relationships that can yield economic development without the EU. Early days, so this may yet happen, but there are few signs suggesting that the UK is going to enjoy this latest world economic surge that most countries have had a decent uptick from this past year or so. England seems to be tromping forward without picking up that much at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Possibly, but as Pannonian's comments have pointed up, the UK has, to date at least, not shown a lot of success in establishing new trade links or building relationships that can yield economic development without the EU. Early days, so this may yet happen, but there are few signs suggesting that the UK is going to enjoy this latest world economic surge that most countries have had a decent uptick from this past year or so. England seems to be tromping forward without picking up that much at all.

---

The last parliamentary inquiry indicated that any deal with the US will have to include normalisation of agricultural standards, with normalisation meaning us yielding to US standards. Just as Remainers had said would happen, but were dismissed as Project Fear. Quite a lot of what Remainers said would happen but were dismissed as Project Fear has happened, or at least have been backed up by government studies. Virtually nothing of what Leavers have said would happen has happened, and just about every expert study has refuted their claims. Yet we are pressing ahead with hard Brexit, which even Nigel Farage said during the campaign would not happen. I certainly remember PFH here saying that the Norway option was the most likely outcome.

For the EU to agree to anything requires all countries to agree. That means Spain has to not put the boot in over Gibraltar, Ireland is happy with the border and France doesn't want to be vindictive. When was that ever realistically going to happen? Perhaps one - but all three? And this is of course thinking all the other 24 have no issues when with Canada it was a regional Belgium court which managed to block.

Alternative Vote should have been used (and should always be used).

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

For the EU to agree to anything requires all countries to agree. That means Spain has to not put the boot in over Gibraltar, Ireland is happy with the border and France doesn't want to be vindictive. When was that ever realistically going to happen? Perhaps one - but all three? And this is of course thinking all the other 24 have no issues when with Canada it was a regional Belgium court which managed to block.

Alternative Vote should have been used (and should always be used).

~:smoking:

---

What do you mean by alternative vote? Alternative vote regarding the referendum, alternative vote in the European Parliament, or what? How does your alternative vote affect the nature of the 2016 referendum, which was that one side had a demonstrable manifesto (the EU as it is), whereas the other side could promise unicorns and leprechauns before the vote before jettisoning all their promises once the vote was over? Remember the 350m/wk promise, so prominent during the campaign, was thrown away the day the result was known. The EU negotiators have complained for the last 12 months (since article 50 was invoked) that the UK side has nothing concrete to negotiate with, no manifesto of any kind to engage with. 21 months since the referendum, and Leave still has no plan to which they should be held accountable for.