Theonik
Member
This is how the UK will become a powerful trading nation!
The EU hasn't read on game theory clearly.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Yes. The answer to this question is always yes. There's another 20 months of these fun and games to look forward to.
Next stop on the embarrassment train - capitulation on the UK's exit bill.
Merlin on the left-middle looks like he knows what's up. Another one of those unelected liberal elite wizards.
Just checking in... ;-)
EU: No problem with Davis' swift exit from Brexit negotiations
Looking pretty good, things are.
oh god loooool
Theonik
Member
Richard Desmond. Porn baron from the 80s mostly in real estate now owns the express daily star OK and used to own channel 5.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
I wish I could walk out of work after an hour and keep my job.
Looks like Frankfurt will the new main financial hub of Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/morgan-stanley-picks-frankfurt-post-brexit-hub
The Guardian said:
The Guardian said:
The Guardian said:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/19/morgan-stanley-picks-frankfurt-post-brexit-hub
Orniletter
Banned
UK threatens to return radioactive waste to EU without nuclear deal
Send your empty threats and burn what little goodwill is left if old.
Send your empty threats and burn what little goodwill is left if old.
How embarrassing.
Theonik
Member
But didn't they already send Boris to the EU?
Bless them, thinking they ever held any of the cards. Eventually they'll realise they were playing Connect 4 whilst the EU was playing chess.
This is only an issue because May has such a hard on to cut all ties with the ECJ. It's amazing how stubborn she really is to a fault.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Um... exactly how would you do that, without it verging on an act of terror? That's actively threatening to endanger the lives of EU citizens.
Theonik
Member
If May could get away with it she would put EU migrants in the barrels so she can kill 2 bird with 1 stone.
An act of terror? Us saying that we're not going to store EU radioactive waste and that they can take over its storage isn't like us setting off a nuke in central Paris.
This is a ridiculous threat but hyperbolic statements don't make it any better.
Theonik
Member
It is if May puts the barrels on trebuchets and hurls them over the English channel it will be just like the 100 years war all over again!
haha
JonnyDBrit
Member
Radioactive waste that we aready hold in a purpose built facility, and are threatening to just unilaterally have sit in a port somewhere - hence the point about 'returning' it, not just denying further shipments. Exactly how does it have to reach the level of 'setting off a nuke in Paris' for my statement to qualify?
Because a boatload of plutonium just sitting there is perfectly safe I guess.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history
Absolutely fucking deluded.
He has some cheek to say that "politics gets in the way of economics" as if that isn't precisely what Brexit is too
Absolutely fucking deluded.
He has some cheek to say that "politics gets in the way of economics" as if that isn't precisely what Brexit is too
It's an empty threat unless the UK wants to return the money it received for processing the waste which it didn't do because Sellafield is such a fucking mess.
The UK also sealed bilateral treaties with Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands in regards to their waste which have nothing to do with the EU.
The UK also sealed bilateral treaties with Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands in regards to their waste which have nothing to do with the EU.
JonnyDBrit
Member
...it's a trade deal. The entire point of one is politics laying out the rules for economics.
The idea that it'll somehow be easier to conduct a trade deal because of the current regulatory equivalency is a bit of a reach. Typically in trade deals the idea is about regulations marrying up over time, in this case the entire point of the enterprise is for the UK to diverge from EU regulation which is the exact opposite direction of travel for most international agreements.
JonnyDBrit
Member
With one of the sides being an international grouping based around the idea of encouraging people to join because the club comes with benefits, and as has been raised god knows how many times over this last year, they can't just make being outside of the club as good as being in it.
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/887989582423359488
I wonder how long itll take until davis agrees to this or the UK walks out to keep the tabloids happy
Well the US haven't accepted ECJ authority for the last few decades, and I imagine this would only apply to EU citizens who have been living here already, not to new EU citizens moving here post Brexit.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I feel like that may depend on how strongly the UK feels about British
There are literally hundreds of thousands of British citizens, many of them pensioners, living in Spain and some other European countries. A non reciprocal deal concerning EU citizenship and rights could mean kicking them/cutting them out from the healthcare system, with many of those old, frail and angry people returning to the UK. It would be a disaster. And it's not like people didn't warn everybody about this happening.
We already know that the EU is very willing to extend some form of EU citizenship to British citizens already in the mainland, but Westminster seems adamant in not extending the same treatment to EU citizens already in the UK. So as the Americans say, thems the breaks. The EU feels like this is the best way they can protect their citizens given the circumstances and the UK will have to take it or present some other deal that happens to be agreeable to both parties. Or just ignore everything and ready for the inevitable fallout.
Such sovereignty. Much reclaiming.
Barnier's statement summed up:
We've spent a week talking and gotten absolutely nowhere because these idiots don't know what they want and refuse to be specific about what they do.
Davis's statement summed up:
We've constructively spent a constructive week talking and cooperatively gotten absolutely nowhere in the spirit of cooperation because we recognise our obligations and refuse to be specific in the national interest.
We've spent a week talking and gotten absolutely nowhere because these idiots don't know what they want and refuse to be specific about what they do.
Davis's statement summed up:
We've constructively spent a constructive week talking and cooperatively gotten absolutely nowhere in the spirit of cooperation because we recognise our obligations and refuse to be specific in the national interest.
There's no situation where the ECJ would oversee anything in the UK when it's outside the EU unless a deal was agreed. (and the same for UK courts in the EU)
I'm not arguing that things need to be sorted but to claim they would have any sort of authority is wrong. I'm not even sure why he would say such a thing. All that's going to do is fuel the hard brexiters "mah sovereignty" crowd.
Theonik
Member
That's because the EU side is being unreasonable. There is no reason why this is necessary and terms for both sides could not be decided in a treaty.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Well, historically it's not that farfetched a notion, many monarchs and nations would claim that the rights of their citizens were universal (which made a neat excuse to subjugate some colonies if the natives happened to infringe on those rights), but really doesn't have much purchase in a modern day global community. Hasn't since oh... the Crimean War?
Edit: In this instance, wouldn't it be easier for both sides to try and find some third party to be a mediator?
The Friendly Monster
Member
It's a negotiation, in which the UK is by far the smaller party. The EU is not going to play easy, and certainly not going to cede control over rights of their citizens so easily. Get used to it.
Why should the EU care?
Not the same, EU citizens that move to the US aren't having their rights stripped from them, after a referendum they were given no vote in.
If the EU is taking the position that any EU citizens rights need to be preserved, then it makes sense that the ECJ would have to be involved. This does put the UK in the awkward position that EU residents have more rights than British ones, but frankly that is their problem to solve given that they decided to leave
Theonik
Member
I don't know why you are being aggressive here. It is in the interest of both parties to have a mutually beneficial deal. If the EU wants to be unreasonable then the only end result is the UK walks out that would suck for both parties.
The Friendly Monster
Member
I don't know why you are being so defensive here. The idea that the EU are the unreasonable party is laughable. The UK walking out would be worse for the UK than for the EU, hence the EU get to dictate the terms. The EU could not be more experienced at this stuff, the UK couldn't be much less so.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Thanks but I understand the word. I wasn't clarifying why I thought the EU wasn't being unreasonable in my third and fourth sentences.
Theonik
Member
And that could be agreed in a treaty. There is no reason to insist the ECJ becoming involved, by the same standard the UK should gain legal jurisdiction in other EU countries after leaving in the spirit of reciprocity. What would actually be needed is an independent mediator if it ever got to that.
The Friendly Monster
Member
But the EU and the UK are not on the same level, the "spirit of reciprocity" simply doesn't apply. The EU is a union of countries that the UK has decided to leave, the ECJ routinely has jurisdiction over individual countries.
UK citizens living in the EU would still maintain their existing rights under the ECJ though, why would the UK gain legal jurisdiction over them when they weren't subject to it anyway?
Also, what would be the point in dealing with this using a separate treaty? It seems wholly sensible (and correct) to include these as part of the current exit negotiations
Theonik
Member
Why would the UK sign up for these extra protections for EU citizens if UK citizens don't get the same in return. That's not happening.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Do you have a reason to believe that the rEU don't want to provide extra protections for UK citizens living in the EU after Brexit? Everything I have seen tells me the opposite.
Theonik
Member
This is why this is even under negotiation. Once the UK is out of the EU, neither party gets to dictate legislation that defines the fate of these citizens in the other country. The EU is as trustworthy here as the UK is so the UK would want similar oversight and control in the EU too since they wouldn't have any control over the laws of the ECJ anymore.
That's a very reductionist view to take. When the UK leaves the EU the treaties will cease applying and UK citizens will cease to be under their protections. So new treaties need to define bilaterally what happens to both groups. These could be part of the current negotiations and part of the final packet that needs to be ratified by all 28 parties. It's a fairly high priority in the negotiations of course.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked