|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On October 06 2016 20:13 MyTHicaL wrote:
it's insulting- yet unsurprising to see yet another Englishman comment on this.
<snip>
As for the racism well, that will always be there; 90minute Scottish Biggot. Go to an Ibrox game and see what happens xD... though we have embarassed ourself recently (I mean result-wise).
And there he is. My friends in Scotland are Scottish (in the oil and financial services industries), Chinese and Spanish, not English. Hell I live in the north of England. In recent times the North has suffered as much if not more than Scotland from the London and the South focus of UK politics, there's no Barnett formula up here. The current surge in Scottish Nationalism clearly isn't linked to anything that happened 800 years ago, that's just ludicrous. But UK politics moving right while Scottish politics move left. With that in point I can totally understand the case for separation, but don't dress it up as a Jacobite renaissance and stop attacking random people for being born in England... or indeed elsewhere.
The 90minute biggots weren't your football holigan, they were casual associates, ordinary people. The point is nationalism brings out the biggots and brings out the biggotry in other people, the SNP just like UKIP was happy to ride this as it served their purpose (thankfully much less so under Nicola Sturgeon) I clearly wasn't insulting you unless you were the idiot with the Mel Gibson shrine shouting at traitor at people in the streets and on facebook feeds. I suspect not and you're just pro separation and lashing out because of some perceived attack. But if you are that guy, please do be insulted. Like the Britain first thugs, those guys are assholes.
|
On October 06 2016 22:14 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 21:58 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 21:36 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 21:32 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 17:06 BurningSera wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/theresa-may-consigns-cameron-to-history-in-populist-speechhaving listened closely May recently, I have never seen such a (tempted to use 'extreme' here) right wing inherently racist govt, this now looks like 1930 more than what I have been saying 1970, and we are nearing the end of 2016. that insane thinking on reducing foreign medical professionals just so we must have more 'local doctors' (and the solution is to raise like 70k more new doctors by sending away hundreds thousands doctors in 10years time) and that today news on go full blown out to the business owners lol. i am not sure that's the best example of an extremely delusional individual as the PM, or the person is simply a full retard (or both really). Brexit is not enough, we must go full hard brexit, well ya, if you bloody do it 2 or 3 months ago I wouldn't have lost so much money already (bloody currency drops), and triggering the insensible official exit in 2017's march (before Holland and Germany election) will continue to crush £ so hard. I think I need an exit strategy now As long as she continues to claim that the UK will both stay in the single market and have full control over EU migration, don't give much credence to the details of her pandering. At some point in the next few years the choice will have to be made, until then she'll continue to lead people by the nose through fantasyland. When did she say we would stay in the single market? Seems clear that free movement will be her red line. In both of her most recent speeches we've seen her suggest full EU migration control & 'maximum freedom' in the single market , which is of course not possible it's either one or the other "We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws."
"We will seek the best deal possible as we negotiate a new agreement with the European Union.
I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services. I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market - and let European businesses do the same here." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37535527It is, of course, too early to say exactly what agreement we will reach with the EU. It’s going to be a tough negotiation, it will require some give and take. And while there will always be pressure to give a running commentary, it will not be in our national interest to do so.
But let me be clear about the agreement we seek.
I want it to reflect the strong and mature relationships we enjoy with our European friends.
I want it to include cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work.
I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services.
I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the Single Market – and let European businesses do the same here.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-mays-speech-conservative-party-8983265 You've just quoted her making her red line on immigration/sovereignty, twice. I think the line about 'maximum freedom' is a pretty weak attempt to reassure businesses, but taken as a whole those speeches clearly indicate withdrawal from the single market. Isn't that the whole reason the markets have been reacting the way they have? Because she's making it more blatant that the single market isn't a realistic option.
I've quoted her saying two mutually exclusive things in absolute terms. And no, the markets aren't reacting anywhere near as strongly as they did in late June (and even then there wasn't a majority opinion that it would lead to leaving the single market). Her recent speeches did not by any means indicate a clear path, but simply brought the overwhelming consensus that Britain will stay in the single market back down a notch which only makes things less stable. But make no mistake, May insisting the UK will have its cake and eat it too was seen as the contradiction it is in the EU.
From EU (parliament)'s chief brexit negotiator:
He's referring to the free movement of capital, goods, services and people. Can't have the first three without the last one as May is still claiming is what the UK is going for.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday that the European Union could not grant Britain full access to the EU's internal market if London did not accept the bloc's basic principle of free movement.
"We will lead no pre-negotiations. But we will say generally that full access to the internal market is coupled with accepting the four basic freedoms, and this includes the free movement of people," Merkel said in speech before members of the BGA trade association.
She added that if the EU granted Britain any exceptions in negotiating access to the internal market, it would create an "extremely difficult situation" for the bloc. She did not elaborate.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-merkel-idUKKCN1251K1
Your reaction to her speech is exactly what she's going for, people picking the part they like and dismissing the other, and is the reason why she will keep spouting this contradiction for a few years until the choice has to be made. Don't expect her to be unequivocal until then because you will be disappointed.
|
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change.
|
On October 06 2016 23:27 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 22:14 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 21:58 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 21:36 bardtown wrote:On October 06 2016 21:32 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 17:06 BurningSera wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/theresa-may-consigns-cameron-to-history-in-populist-speechhaving listened closely May recently, I have never seen such a (tempted to use 'extreme' here) right wing inherently racist govt, this now looks like 1930 more than what I have been saying 1970, and we are nearing the end of 2016. that insane thinking on reducing foreign medical professionals just so we must have more 'local doctors' (and the solution is to raise like 70k more new doctors by sending away hundreds thousands doctors in 10years time) and that today news on go full blown out to the business owners lol. i am not sure that's the best example of an extremely delusional individual as the PM, or the person is simply a full retard (or both really). Brexit is not enough, we must go full hard brexit, well ya, if you bloody do it 2 or 3 months ago I wouldn't have lost so much money already (bloody currency drops), and triggering the insensible official exit in 2017's march (before Holland and Germany election) will continue to crush £ so hard. I think I need an exit strategy now As long as she continues to claim that the UK will both stay in the single market and have full control over EU migration, don't give much credence to the details of her pandering. At some point in the next few years the choice will have to be made, until then she'll continue to lead people by the nose through fantasyland. When did she say we would stay in the single market? Seems clear that free movement will be her red line. In both of her most recent speeches we've seen her suggest full EU migration control & 'maximum freedom' in the single market , which is of course not possible it's either one or the other "We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws."
"We will seek the best deal possible as we negotiate a new agreement with the European Union.
I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services. I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market - and let European businesses do the same here." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37535527It is, of course, too early to say exactly what agreement we will reach with the EU. It’s going to be a tough negotiation, it will require some give and take. And while there will always be pressure to give a running commentary, it will not be in our national interest to do so.
But let me be clear about the agreement we seek.
I want it to reflect the strong and mature relationships we enjoy with our European friends.
I want it to include cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work.
I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services.
I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the Single Market – and let European businesses do the same here.
But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-mays-speech-conservative-party-8983265 You've just quoted her making her red line on immigration/sovereignty, twice. I think the line about 'maximum freedom' is a pretty weak attempt to reassure businesses, but taken as a whole those speeches clearly indicate withdrawal from the single market. Isn't that the whole reason the markets have been reacting the way they have? Because she's making it more blatant that the single market isn't a realistic option. I've quoted her saying two mutually exclusive things in absolute terms. And no, the markets aren't reacting anywhere near as strongly as they did in late June (and even then there wasn't a majority opinion that it would lead to leaving the single market). Her recent speeches did not by any means indicate a clear path, but simply brought the overwhelming consensus that Britain will stay in the single market back down a notch which only makes things less stable. But make no mistake, May insisting the UK will have its cake and eat it too was seen as the contradiction it is in the EU. From EU's chief brexit negotiator: https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/783230862263541760https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/783573780874555392He's referring to the free movement of capital, goods, services and people. Can't have the first three without the last one as May is still claiming is what the UK is going for. Show nested quote +German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday that the European Union could not grant Britain full access to the EU's internal market if London did not accept the bloc's basic principle of free movement.
"We will lead no pre-negotiations. But we will say generally that full access to the internal market is coupled with accepting the four basic freedoms, and this includes the free movement of people," Merkel said in speech before members of the BGA trade association.
She added that if the EU granted Britain any exceptions in negotiating access to the internal market, it would create an "extremely difficult situation" for the bloc. She did not elaborate. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-merkel-idUKKCN1251K1Your reaction to her speech is exactly what she's going for, people picking the part they like and dismissing the other, and is the reason why she will keep spouting this contradiction for a few years until the choice has to be made. Don't expect her to be unequivocal until then because you will be disappointed.
She has already been unequivocal in establishing free movement/courts as a red line in the section that you yourself quoted. 'Maximum' access to the single market != 'full' access to the single market. It means getting the best access possible given the circumstances. Yes, it's intentionally ambiguous and overly positive, but the markets reacted and the press all ran headlines about leaving the single market. The message was received.
On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change.
Guy Verhofstadt is probably the worst person Juncker could have picked if he wanted sensible talks. He represents the parliament though, and the council will be more relevant in negotiations, and hopefully more balanced, informed by concerns of industries, etc. Generally less grandstanding/ideological and more pragmatic.
|
On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change.
No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit".
|
On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change.
Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving.
|
On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit".
So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else?
On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving.
In the long run that's just going to make the union break apart. It works for the moment but as soon as the EU has a weaker negotiating position than its member states people are going to be talking about leaving. An agreement that isn't mutually beneficial is by necessity temporary, as someone or other said.
|
On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else?
To be fair, both sides showing their muscles before the actual negotiations begin is expected. There is a theatrical aspect in all of this. In the end, profit expectations/money might soften the hard stances from each side...
|
On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change.
By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make.
If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement.
Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do.
|
On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else?
The EU is starting these negotiations from a positition of strenght. It has something the UK wants (access to the EU market) which pales in comparison to what the UK can offer (the UK market being much smaller) so yes their position of "accept these terms we want, then we'll talk" makes perfect sense.
Plus the whole posturing thing as noted.
|
On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving.
Isn't that Guy guy (sorry I couldn't stop myself) only representing the European parliament, not the whole union?
|
On October 06 2016 23:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:50 Morfildur wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. No, the EU is saying "accept free movement or do a hard Brexit". So: accept the terms we want, then we'll talk about everything else? To be fair, both sides showing their muscles before the actual negotiations begin is expected. There is a theatrical aspect in all of this. In the end, profit expectations/money might soften the hard stances from each side...
That would be a feasible interpretation until you note that the Brexit wouldn't have won if not for the fact that the EU has been remarkably inflexible about any disagreement with its own political ideals.
|
On October 07 2016 00:04 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. Isn't that Guy guy (sorry I had to) only representing the European parliament, not the whole union?
Yes, he was appointed by and represents the parliament, not the commision/Juncker or EU as a whole
|
On October 07 2016 00:04 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:52 TheDwf wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. Guy Verhofstadt is a fanatic. The simple fact that they chose him as a negotiator pretty much says everything. They want to dissuade other countries from leaving the EU, so the hardcore line (should it prevail) will probably try to “punish” UK for leaving. Isn't that Guy guy (sorry I couldn't stop myself) only representing the European parliament, not the whole union?
Yes, that's what I read. Michel Barnier is the chief negotiator.
|
Maybe they picked Verhofstadt to be the stick and someone else will offer the carrot.
|
On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do.
If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line.
|
On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line.
Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you
The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog.
|
On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line.
On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog.
This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament.
|
On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them.
This is where you are mistaken, it's the dog that the other tenants have a problem with. The Brexit referendum had an inverse effect on euroscepticism in other members and it's not a significant factor in the 'destruction of the EU' compared to what conceding one of the 4 core pillars of the union would do. And this is not something specific to the EU, every agreement is based on some principles that justify its existence.
|
On October 07 2016 00:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 00:22 Rebs wrote:On October 07 2016 00:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2016 23:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 06 2016 23:34 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly it really sounds like the EU side is basically saying "hard Brexit or fuck off" to the UK. It doesn't sound like they are willing to negotiate anything that matters and just want everyone to fall in line. That attitude will be the death of the EU if it doesn't change. By anything that matters, you mean free movement which of course isn't negotiable. What the hell would be the point of any international agreement that allowed a member to keep the benefits of the agreement while reneging key obligations? There isn't any such agreement. And Brexiteers know very well that they're not at the mercy of the EU but have a clear choice that they themselves have to make. If you agreed to rent a place that doesn't allow dogs and years later started really wanting a dog, you're going to have to choose between living there or having a dog, you don't get to blame it on the meanies that won't change the terms of the agreement. Not a great example because it's not a hugely important factor in that case but you get the idea. If there will be a 'death of the EU' that would be a result of the way it is structured, not a result of doing what every single agreement in existence has to do. If your analogy accounted for the scenario that said tenant pays a lot of money in rent, that their place is not so easy to rent, and that said tenant's departure might just lead many other tenants to leave, you might find the landlord to be more flexible if their income really matters to them more than a "we can't set a precedent of addressing problems with a flawed system" hard line. Not really, because at the end of the day, the landlord still knows you are going to end up relatively homeless or in a shittier place unless you cooperate and more importantly so do you The terms are the terms. As he said, you cant get a dog if no one is allowed a dog. This is great. The logical response of the council vs. the illogical response of the parliament.
Sorry you dont get to brand things without explaining them. What was your leverage again ? That everyone else will leave and they will lose revenue the british cough up? .. im still yawning so is the EU. So are all the experts your boy Gough hates.
They are going to give you exceptional terms to be a part of the single market out of fear of the above. Logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
