EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

I don't know where you got that logic from, but it's not the logic that I have.
Your wording made it sound like the EU itself overruled the will of the people in several countries, but this was apparently not really the case.
The whole narrative of "the EU is destroying our national sovereignty and imposing its will on us" does not make sense in cases where the veto of a single national government such as your own could have stopped the process. In these cases you have to ask yourself why your own government didn't veto the thing if your entire nation (that elected that government) finds it so horrible?

Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236

The EU is responsible for the Windrush scandal. Rory has already blamed the EU for taking us into foreign wars.

[Greyblades]

Its leaked that our government is willing to consider letting a chinese company upgrade the national internet infrstructure .

What do the conservative hopefuls have to say about the revelation of yet another massive blunder our prime minister made in defiance of her cabinet's advice? Hang the leaker!

My country, my fucking country.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU is responsible for the Windrush scandal. Rory has already blamed the EU for taking us into foreign wars.

Ladies and gentlemen - a remainer in full flow.

[Furunculus]

I suppose i can't be be the only beneficiary of misrepresentation, that would he unfair on the rest of you.

[Pannonian]

Ladies and gentlemen - a remainer in full flow.

Would you like to explain what you mean by the following?

IOthers have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.

If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.

Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

[Husar]

Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

Seems obvious that he wants to leave NATO and break ties with the US. Seems like a good move, given that London is almost entirely owned by Russian and Saudi oligarchs by now.

[rory_20_uk]

Would you like to explain what you mean by the following?



Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

Would you like to explain what you mean by the following?



Why was it the EU's fault that we got involved in those foreign entanglements? How would Brexit help free us from these entanglements?

Where did I even mention the EU? How the HELL did you manage to get the EU into something where I didn't mention it at all? Not once.

First paragraph was in very simple terms demonstrating that I do not think that the UK is a "big power" any more. Some Remainers seem to think that those who wish to leave expect the UK to be a major power again - the whole "returning to the Days of Empire" trope. Can you believe that? Remainers making up their own narrative??!?

The second paragraph mentions Germany and France - two major European powers. If the UK is now a weaker power and no longer pretends to have clout then I mentioned two countries that could step up. Not that they should or that they must.

Do you see how the EU wasn't mentioned? Not once?

Us choosing to be a country that has a small armed forces would free us from entanglements by not getting involved in the first place. If we continue to have "soft" power that's great. The whole speaking English thing, following codes of Law that have their genesis in English common law and perhaps even continuing to value the trappings the UK has - like the Monarchy and the Commonwealth. Then that'd be good.

No EU mentioned. Not blaming the EU for something nor viewing the EU as the cause of all suffering.

Seems obvious that he wants to leave NATO and break ties with the US. Seems like a good move, given that London is almost entirely owned by Russian and Saudi oligarchs by now.

A German with a sense of humour.

Why would the UK want to leave the US - we both share a love of Russian money and influence and Saudi money for weapons...

NATO is the model for what I would have supported in an EU. Shared standards, shared goals but each independent of each other. Giving how NATO has helped prevent European or another World War since WW2 I think it is a good model to use.

[Furunculus]

Intergovernmental not supranational, right?

[Husar]

NATO is the model for what I would have supported in an EU. Shared standards, shared goals but each independent of each other. Giving how NATO has helped prevent European or another World War since WW2 I think it is a good model to use.

On such a loose collection of countries, divide and conquer can work relatively well. Maybe less so in war, but when we're talking soft(er) power through monetary influence, etc.
Shared goals are harder to keep without a shared purse and with everyone fighting for themselves. The crisis in Greece and other countries would probably be an example of that as the "EU purse" is not shared enough to maintain the shared goals. One country tries to profit at the expense of the others (yes, Germany does that, too) and the ensuing conflict erodes the goal sharing.

To think that loosening the ties would somehow lead to less conflict seems wrong.

[rory_20_uk]

On such a loose collection of countries, divide and conquer can work relatively well. Maybe less so in war, but when we're talking soft(er) power through monetary influence, etc.
Shared goals are harder to keep without a shared purse and with everyone fighting for themselves. The crisis in Greece and other countries would probably be an example of that as the "EU purse" is not shared enough to maintain the shared goals. One country tries to profit at the expense of the others (yes, Germany does that, too) and the ensuing conflict erodes the goal sharing.

To think that loosening the ties would somehow lead to less conflict seems wrong.

That we have parties in several EU countries whose main aims are against the EU demonstrates that there is plenty of conflict against the EU already.

To have shared goals and a shared purse appears to make the assumption that there are shared goals and that there is the desire for a shared purse. Much of the evidence demonstrates that this is not the case; there is probably groups of countries with shared outlooks and these groups differ depending on the topic. For example, Germany is much less interventionist than the UK or France; Germany's productivity and view on debt (and almost anything good to be honest) is at odds with Italy and Greece for starters.

The USA works due to their ability to commit ethnic genocide and cultural destruction on pretty much everything on the continent - and indeed the main differences that persist appear to be remnants of what was there before it was bulldozed. Europe can't take that approach.

[Husar]

That we have parties in several EU countries whose main aims are against the EU demonstrates that there is plenty of conflict against the EU already.

We also have parties that are against a democratic Germany and want the Reich back or implement a Stalinist utopia. Does that mean the only democratic thing to do is to is to dismantle Germany again and give Scotland independence? And dismantle the US for ultimate states' rights as well of course.

As for the rest, just because everybody was cheering for Total War (not the game) when Himmler was calling for it, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. There are plenty of people in the EU today who thrive on this conflict and competition, that doesn't mean listening to them is going to solve our problems and make the world a better place, precisely because most do not define "better place" as a place with lots of competition and bloodshed.

A lot of people simply blame the highest authority for everything. Removing that authority simply makes them blame the next lower one until you have anarchy and they kill their neighbor to fix their "perceived" problems...
Is that the sort of gut feeling we should use to model our society?

[Pannonian]

That we have parties in several EU countries whose main aims are against the EU demonstrates that there is plenty of conflict against the EU already.

To have shared goals and a shared purse appears to make the assumption that there are shared goals and that there is the desire for a shared purse. Much of the evidence demonstrates that this is not the case; there is probably groups of countries with shared outlooks and these groups differ depending on the topic. For example, Germany is much less interventionist than the UK or France; Germany's productivity and view on debt (and almost anything good to be honest) is at odds with Italy and Greece for starters.

The USA works due to their ability to commit ethnic genocide and cultural destruction on pretty much everything on the continent - and indeed the main differences that persist appear to be remnants of what was there before it was bulldozed. Europe can't take that approach.

Talking about shared goals, and your resentment at the ECJ for dictating to us outside the structure of a UK government (despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour), what do you make of the US threat to remove us from Five Eyes if we do not ban Huawei?

Do other Leavers feel this is a reasonable request by the US?

[rory_20_uk]

Talking about shared goals, and your resentment at the ECJ for dictating to us outside the structure of a UK government (despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour), what do you make of the US threat to remove us from Five Eyes if we do not ban Huawei?

Do other Leavers feel this is a reasonable request by the US?

I doubt there are many people anywhere in the world who think anything the Trump administration do is reasonable.
Are we now basing what our country does for decades on one tweet?

[Furunculus]

Talking about shared goals, and your resentment at the ECJ for dictating to us outside the structure of a UK government (despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour), what do you make of the US threat to remove us from Five Eyes if we do not ban Huawei?

Do other Leavers feel this is a reasonable request by the US?

i am sympathetic to both sides.l:

5g is going to be fundamental to the way newtorked industry works to such a degree that giving control to a strategic competitor is frankly dangerous.
i dont blame the us for taking an ideological position; it is their fight and they have the resource to do otherwise.
i don't blame australia for coming to the same conclusion, for they lack the resources to verify and validate their networks.
i don't believe britain is in either of those two positions , so i can see the logic of keeping them out of the core of the network.

but let's make no bones about it, in an information age china is our strategic competitor.

[Pannonian]

I doubt there are many people anywhere in the world who think anything the Trump administration do is reasonable.
Are we now basing what our country does for decades on one tweet?

Why are you dismissing this as a tweet, when a named US official has stated this to be policy? Should we comply with the US?

[Pannonian]

i am sympathetic to both sides.l:

5g is going to be fundamental to the way newtorked industry works to such a degree that giving control to a strategic competitor is frankly dangerous.
i dont blame the us for taking an ideological position; it is their fight and they have the resource to do otherwise.
i don't blame australia for coming to the same conclusion, for they lack the resources to verify and validate their networks.
i don't believe britain is in either of those two positions , so i can see the logic of keeping them out of the core of the network.

but let's make no bones about it, in an information age china is our strategic competitor.

So do you think the US demand is reasonable?

[rory_20_uk]

Why are you dismissing this as a tweet, when a named US official has stated this to be policy? Should we comply with the US?

Because now US officials are desperately trying to doll up tweets as policy on the fly? To try to pretend they have a policy? As with almost everything else? And Congress would need to pass a law for this to be the case who tend to be less enthusiastic about destroying strategic relationships. It is also very wonkish, so Grandpa-in-Chief will probably move on before long. And finally there is no American company that would win the business so will he really care?

There is a pretty good likelihood the demands will fall foul of WHO rules on anticompetitive behaviour.

He's been offered a state visit where he can come and sit in antique hideous gilt surroundings with royal courtiers fawning on him. He'll love it. Perhaps we can give him an honoury knighthood to really pander to his vanity.

[Beskar]

He's been offered a state visit where he can come and sit in antique hideous gilt surroundings with royal courtiers fawning on him. He'll love it. Perhaps we can give him an honoury knighthood to really pander to his vanity.

I don't think you realised how great of an idea this would be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So do you think the US demand is reasonable?

Ejection from the Five Eyes?

I think the threat is reasonable.

Allowing a hostile nation to have access to our communications infrastructure is dumb, and China is not only hostile but a repressive society. Even if Huawei is honest today (and that's an open question) all its executives could be arrested tomorrow and the company nationalised.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think you realised how great of an idea this would be.

It gives me the same feeling as deciding to have a quick swim in an open cesspit.

[Pannonian]

Ejection from the Five Eyes?

I think the threat is reasonable.

Allowing a hostile nation to have access to our communications infrastructure is dumb, and China is not only hostile but a repressive society. Even if Huawei is honest today (and that's an open question) all its executives could be arrested tomorrow and the company nationalised.

So do you think that foreign countries making requests of our government is acceptable if those requests are reasonable?

[Pannonian]

Because now US officials are desperately trying to doll up tweets as policy on the fly? To try to pretend they have a policy? As with almost everything else? And Congress would need to pass a law for this to be the case who tend to be less enthusiastic about destroying strategic relationships. It is also very wonkish, so Grandpa-in-Chief will probably move on before long. And finally there is no American company that would win the business so will he really care?

There is a pretty good likelihood the demands will fall foul of WHO rules on anticompetitive behaviour.

He's been offered a state visit where he can come and sit in antique hideous gilt surroundings with royal courtiers fawning on him. He'll love it. Perhaps we can give him an honoury knighthood to really pander to his vanity.

If you think that Congress will be unwilling to break up international relationships at the behest of the President, what do you make of the head of Congress warning the UK that, if we were to break the GFA, we can forget about any agreements with the US? This is the stated policy of the ERG, who will decide our next PM and thus government. And the head of the US Congress is telling us that this is not acceptable. Do you think that we should be listening to US demands and subsequently changing our policies?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So do you think that foreign countries making requests of our government is acceptable if those requests are reasonable?

Hmmm....Pannonian is playing the "reverse roles on sovereignty" card...tricksy, very tricksy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you think that Congress will be unwilling to break up international relationships at the behest of the President, what do you make of the head of Congress warning the UK that, if we were to break the GFA, we can forget about any agreements with the US? This is the stated policy of the ERG, who will decide our next PM and thus government. And the head of the US Congress is telling us that this is not acceptable. Do you think that we should be listening to US demands and subsequently changing our policies?

Listening? Of course, as we are allies of long standing. OTOH, this is Congress to whom your refer. At the end of the day, US business needs will have the greater leverage over the votes of that body.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So do you think that foreign countries making requests of our government is acceptable if those requests are reasonable?

That is the very essence of diplomacy - among states and individuals.

If you expect me to say otherwise you either need more wine or more coffee.

If you think that Congress will be unwilling to break up international relationships at the behest of the President, what do you make of the head of Congress warning the UK that, if we were to break the GFA, we can forget about any agreements with the US? This is the stated policy of the ERG, who will decide our next PM and thus government. And the head of the US Congress is telling us that this is not acceptable. Do you think that we should be listening to US demands and subsequently changing our policies?

It is not the stated policy of the ERG to break the Good Friday Agreement - I believe it is the stated policy of the ERG to uphold said agreement. You are conflating a hard border with breaking the Agreement, but there is nothing IN the Agreement about a hard border, just a demilitarised one.

Listening? Of course, as we are allies of long standing. OTOH, this is Congress to whom your refer. At the end of the day, US business needs will have the greater leverage over the votes of that body.

Pan isn't making any sense, not that I can make out.

[Pannonian]

That is the very essence of diplomacy - among states and individuals.

If you expect me to say otherwise you either need more wine or more coffee.

It is not the stated policy of the ERG to break the Good Friday Agreement - I believe it is the stated policy of the ERG to uphold said agreement. You are conflating a hard border with breaking the Agreement, but there is nothing IN the Agreement about a hard border, just a demilitarised one.

Pan isn't making any sense, not that I can make out.

I agree with the US demands on this, and that we should comply with the requirements of Five Eyes as we gain more with compliance than we do with protesting our sovereignty and right to do whatever we want whatever the outside world thinks. I support our membership of international bodies and I see cooperation across borders as a good thing. That's why I voted for it. Unfortunately, one of the supposedly principled arguments for Leave is that it is an outrage that an outside body like ECJ is able to tell us what to do. Despite our governments having signed up to agreements that the ECJ rules on. Despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour. This is rory's stated red line on Brexit, and thus I posed the question of equivalence to him. And he couldn't answer, as his red line was supposedly principled and not based on benefits, and thus he attacked the credibility of the administration rather than apply that principle across the board.

If you think that I make no sense, and that the ERG does not intend to break the GFA, note that it was Pelosi who explicitly made that threat/promise, that if the UK breaks the GFA, it can forget about agreements with the US. I didn't make that jump. Pelosi, the speaker of US Congress, did. Rory tried to discredit the other government official by saying that Trump's administration was slapdash and that such intentions would need to be backed by Congress passing a law (and I'd ask again, what is Brexit's mandate if it cannot pass the Commons). So I pointed out that the speaker of Congress thinks we are going rogue, and are liable to breaking international treaties.

[Pannonian]

Listening? Of course, as we are allies of long standing. OTOH, this is Congress to whom your refer. At the end of the day, US business needs will have the greater leverage over the votes of that body.

The UK is a longstanding member of the EEC/EU. It's signed up to the agreements that the EU consists of. It is one of the principal creators of the Single Market, whose rules are enforced by the ECJ (who rule in our favour in something like 95% of cases involving UK companies/claimants). But it is supposedly outrageous that we have to follow the demands of a non-UK body such as the ECJ, that Brexit is justified by this principle alone, and arguments of cost benefits and evidence that we gain from EU membership are irrelevant in the face of this principled argument. Thus I invited Brexiteers to apply their argument across the board. After all, a principle is a principle.

Personally, I agree with the US on this, and I would not trust Chinese control of our infrastructure. But then I never made that principled argument. I support sovereignty as something real and tangible, based on trust and trustworthiness. I do not support supposed assertions of principle that require us to break that trust. I trust the EU and the US, as both have earned that over time and with their actions. I do not trust China, as their actions do not engender trust. It is not a matter of principle. It is a matter of trust.

[Furunculus]

So do you think the US demand is reasonable?

Yes, it is a reasonable demand to make.

It is also reasonable for the UK to push back against the US [if] it believes it can mitigate that vulnerability by excluding huawei from the 'core' network.

The truth of the security matter - whether it is closer to US's precautionary principle, or UK's demonstrable harm - is not something I am qualified to answer.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree with the US demands on this, and that we should comply with the requirements of Five Eyes as we gain more with compliance than we do with protesting our sovereignty and right to do whatever we want whatever the outside world thinks. I support our membership of international bodies and I see cooperation across borders as a good thing. That's why I voted for it. Unfortunately, one of the supposedly principled arguments for Leave is that it is an outrage that an outside body like ECJ is able to tell us what to do. Despite our governments having signed up to agreements that the ECJ rules on. Despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour. This is rory's stated red line on Brexit, and thus I posed the question of equivalence to him. And he couldn't answer, as his red line was supposedly principled and not based on benefits, and thus he attacked the credibility of the administration rather than apply that principle across the board.

I didn't respond since... I have a life beyond this discussion board. If a week had gone by and I'd been posting elsewhere I might think that you have a point. As it is I quite understand that the best argument you've had in several pages is inferring the intent of others and wild extrapolation.

If you can't tell the difference between the ECJ imposing its decisions on the UK and an ally stating possible effects to possible courses of action then I have no idea what more to say - they are completely different.

Might I also remind you that the USA under The Donald has been something of a sieve with the toddler in chief taking delight in sharing classified information with others pretty much because he can. I imagine that countries all over the world have taken note and free sharing of intelligence is probably not quite as free as it was under previous presidents.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with the US demands on this, and that we should comply with the requirements of Five Eyes as we gain more with compliance than we do with protesting our sovereignty and right to do whatever we want whatever the outside world thinks. I support our membership of international bodies and I see cooperation across borders as a good thing. That's why I voted for it. Unfortunately, one of the supposedly principled arguments for Leave is that it is an outrage that an outside body like ECJ is able to tell us what to do. Despite our governments having signed up to agreements that the ECJ rules on. Despite the ECJ being overwhelmingly in our favour. This is rory's stated red line on Brexit, and thus I posed the question of equivalence to him. And he couldn't answer, as his red line was supposedly principled and not based on benefits, and thus he attacked the credibility of the administration rather than apply that principle across the board.

If you think that I make no sense, and that the ERG does not intend to break the GFA, note that it was Pelosi who explicitly made that threat/promise, that if the UK breaks the GFA, it can forget about agreements with the US. I didn't make that jump. Pelosi, the speaker of US Congress, did. Rory tried to discredit the other government official by saying that Trump's administration was slapdash and that such intentions would need to be backed by Congress passing a law (and I'd ask again, what is Brexit's mandate if it cannot pass the Commons). So I pointed out that the speaker of Congress thinks we are going rogue, and are liable to breaking international treaties.

You're missing the fundamental point - the UK is supposed to be governed by consent, and that consent is supposed to be ongoing. No one in the UK consented to being governed by the European Union or to the progressive extension of the ECJ's remit. In fact nobody ever voted to join the EEC, only to endorse the status quo after the fact.

It is the EU that has linked a hard border to the Good Friday Agreement - this is what the Americans are picking up on. The distinction is subtle, to be sure, and nobody is saying they WANT a hard border but nonetheless having one by default does not actually break they agreement.

The simple fact is that the Backstop is repugnant to the British Constitution and has been voted down three times now - despite which the EU continues to insist on its implementation. The EU is point-blank refusing to negotiate, so who's fault will it ultimately be if we crash out with No-deal?

Just the people in the UK who voted Leave?

That's rather like blaming Roman Catholics for crop failures.