EPTOn June 19 2017 18:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Is this an example of how Governments fall overnight?
Is this an example of how Governments fall overnight?
What's so awful about that video? Doesn't seem like he says anything outrageous to me.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 363
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4544 Posts
What's so awful about that video? Doesn't seem like he says anything outrageous to me. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18017 Posts
On June 19 2017 18:50 Laurens wrote: What's so awful about that video? Doesn't seem like he says anything outrageous to me. I also don't get it. If the EU and UK don't reach a new trade agreement, it falls back to WTO standards, which include tariffs. All the others are specific EU agreements that the UK would either no longer be part of, or need to negotiate a successor to, possibly with no real trouble at all, because I'm pretty sure both the EU and US have great benefits to continued relations with the UK, especially in things like the Open Skies agreement. Leaving EU-wide treaties is kinda the definition of leaving the EU... | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 19 2017 15:00 xM(Z wrote: a point can still be made here about the internalization of the problem at a muslim community level. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21722 Posts
Like.... isn't that what everyone has been saying the entire time? Its the reason the leavers want to leave and the remainders want to remain. And Davis does not display the slightest bit of incompetence in that clip, he just correctly answers questions that anyone could answer by spending 10 minutes on the internet. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. What a word! I consider xmz's take on the topic on the same level as sosexy's, so although I might be curious I ignore it. Regarding Davies, apart from seeming rather uneasy, taking his glasses on and off, his answer don't strike me as incompetent or dishonest. Some points are simlpy unclear yet. That's the whole point of having the talks, right. It's not all about trade so WTF, sry WTO can't cover everything in case of failed talks. I.e. while talks can fail on trade with forseeable repercussions, they not neccessarily can on other topics. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote: you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote: you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. How do you come to the conclusion that they're not doing anything about it And what would in your mind be an appropriate response? | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote: you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Hang on. How does this indicate that we're not all jointly againat terrorism? Worldwide Muslims are mych more likely that anyone else to be the victim of terrorism. In UK and West, Muslims have been victims of terror attacks. The the Manchester bomber's family reported him to the police. That's pretty much as against Islamic terrorism as you can rationally get: reporting your own family members. The bomber also had spite for the anti-extremism sermon he preached. The Muslim Council routinely speaks out and condemns these atrocities. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4544 Posts
Good, good. Pay up first, then get your new trade deal. In contrast to well-rehearsed EU positions on issues such as the financial settlement and Irish borders, British officials admit they did not bring any prepared negotiating papers to share with their counterparts – insisting instead that their overall ambitions were made clear by the government’s white paper and Lancaster House speech. That's hilarious. | ||
KwarK
United States42838 Posts
On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote: you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks (and that would be ignoring all the most recent attacks which were all committed by individuals reported by members of their community) I fail to see how a campaign by white British people to terrorize the Muslim community is meant to be the trigger to creating unity and solidarity between the white British and British Muslim communities. Consider the inverse. How many terrorist attacks in your community would it take for you to decide that it's in your interests to work with the terrorists? I'm thinking that each attack would make it less likely. Yet your plan relies upon exactly that, attacking the Muslim community until they're eager to work closely with us and oppose any who hate us. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42838 Posts
On June 20 2017 16:10 Laurens wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/19/uk-caves-in-to-eu-demand-to-agree-divorce-bill-before-trade-talks Good, good. Pay up first, then get your new trade deal. That's hilarious. There is absolutely no chance of the EU getting the financial settlement sum they previously discussed. Even if the Conservative government wasn't essentially bankrupt it is a political non starter. Nobody voted to leave the EU with the expectation that we would be sending more money to Europe. Payments will continue in the previously agreed upon amounts for as long as we are in the EU and they will stop the moment we are out with no one time exit fees. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On June 20 2017 16:18 KwarK wrote: There is absolutely no chance of the EU getting the financial settlement sum they previously discussed. Even if the Conservative government wasn't essentially bankrupt it is a political non starter. Nobody voted to leave the EU with the expectation that we would be sending more money to Europe. Payments will continue in the previously agreed upon amounts for as long as we are in the EU and they will stop the moment we are out with no one time exit fees. I think people could put up with continuing to fund some projects for a few years that we will benefit from like some environmental projects or some such but any big one off payment is a no no. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10736 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On June 20 2017 17:00 Velr wrote: And here i was, thinking you would put the money in the NHS. NHS is a bottomless pit for money. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18017 Posts
On June 20 2017 16:36 Zaros wrote: I think people could put up with continuing to fund some projects for a few years that we will benefit from like some environmental projects or some such but any big one off payment is a no no. I don't think either of you quite understand the extent to which the EU and national or even regional government are all mixed up at the level of funding. For instance, can an Oxford researcher participate in this year's EU Horizon 2020 calls? And what happens to those 3-5 year projects, if funded, when the UK leaves the EU? What about infrastructure projects? Should the EU continue their investment in the Orkney theatre? And the Dogger Island wind park idea? If built, will the UK be able to get electricity from it? And how much should they pay for the initial investment? Do they get their own initial investment back if the pan goes ahead but only supplies electricity to EU nations? And those are three smallish examples from thousands of EU projects ongoing both exclusively in the UK and in collaboration with other EU nations ranging from energy to fishery (and marine stewardship) to military to infrastructure to research to agriculture to medicine to civil services. Some will be easy to dissolve/continue/separate and figure out who pays what. Others will be extremely difficult with multiple parties involved wanting different solutions. Because let's face it: the EU was not set up with separation in mind, so while there was a legal provision for it, the bureaucratic mess is going to be impressive. And expecting to come out without a big butcher's bill for the UK is going to be impossible, because while you think you didn't vote for it, French and German and Dutch and Greek people definitely didn't vote for it, and why should Italians be paying for research done in Oxford, or mountain trails and cultural heritage in Scotland, if there's no treaty in place? | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4544 Posts
On June 20 2017 16:18 KwarK wrote: There is absolutely no chance of the EU getting the financial settlement sum they previously discussed. Even if the Conservative government wasn't essentially bankrupt it is a political non starter. Nobody voted to leave the EU with the expectation that we would be sending more money to Europe. Payments will continue in the previously agreed upon amounts for as long as we are in the EU and they will stop the moment we are out with no one time exit fees. If you are referring to the 100 billion euro exit bill that appeared 2 months ago, I agree that's obviously not going to happen. But you are definitely going to pay an exit fee lol. To think otherwise is stupid. Unless you mean the UK will just go "no deal" if presented with an exit bill, that is of course a possibility. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 20 2017 16:18 KwarK wrote: There is absolutely no chance of the EU getting the financial settlement sum they previously discussed. Even if the Conservative government wasn't essentially bankrupt it is a political non starter. Nobody voted to leave the EU with the expectation that we would be sending more money to Europe. Payments will continue in the previously agreed upon amounts for as long as we are in the EU and they will stop the moment we are out with no one time exit fees. While i agree that the £100b number or what it was is retarded and obviously won't happen, you're way off if you think that 27 memberstates will just pick up the tab for commitments that the UK agreed to, regardless of what's happening now. If the UK signed commitments that go beyond 2019 (and they obviously did), they'll pay for those - one way or another. And honestly, they should. If i buy a car on credit today, pay it half off and then flog it, i'm still going to pay the rest of it off even though i don't have the car anymore. To assume "well we're not EU anymore so fuck the commitments we made" is idiotic, because if that's the position you go into the negotiations with, good luck getting any leverage/favours out of the rest of the EU. Now, to reiterate, i do think the £100b number is retarded, but i wouldn't be surprised if the first numbers that were floating around are are actually in the right ballpark (what was it, £30b?). Payments will continue in the previously agreed upon amounts for as long as you signed them for, if not, there will be a one time exit fee amounting to all commitments over full run time. It's baffling that you think that somehow every contract you signed will be "void" because you left the EU - that's certainly not how it works, and even more certainly not something that the rest of the EU who has to pick up the tab will ratify. To assume otherwise is as retarded as voting for brexit for "economical reasons" or "NHS tho!" in the first place. edit: Sidenote, good luck getting a decent trade deal with the EU if every member state is paying your bill off. I don't think people realise that there's no "trade deal with france" or "trade deal with the netherlands". There's quite the possibility (in fact, many call for it) that you leave the single market, which means after those exit negotiations, you have to get a trade deal with what basically is the ex-husband that you loaded all your debt onto. Times 26. Good luck with that. I think people could put up with continuing to fund some projects for a few years that we will benefit from like some environmental projects or some such but any big one off payment is a no no. I don't think you realise what those payments would actually be for. Don't take it the wrong way, it's kinda impossible to get "educated" in that regard by the british media - but yeah, it's not as easy as you try to make it out to be. The EU will have a legitimate claim (it won't be £100b tho), and the UK will have to decide if it wants to honour their commitments or essentially leave the negotiation table. There's not many options in between. edit2: damn, Acrofales explained it already. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42838 Posts
With respect to foreign policy the British government has always had the power to make and unmake any treaty it sees fit without offering recourse or recognizing any obligation. There is no constitutional mechanism within British law by which the obligations of Britain could be enforced should the British government disavow it. In the spirit of being neighbourly the British government is likely to seek an amicable break. However the EU has only a carrot and the threat of no carrots at the bargaining table, there is no stick. The EU can give the UK a good deal, or it can let the UK default to non member WTO rules. But it can't punish the UK without first obtaining the consent of the UK to be punished. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21722 Posts
On June 20 2017 19:22 KwarK wrote: For what it's worth the British constitution has no mechanism for recognizing the legitimacy of any foreign authority within British law, save that which is incorporated into British law. All legal authority within the United Kingdom stems from the person of the monarch. EU law, for example, exists only in as much as it is incorporated into British law through the treaties signed by the appointed representatives of the monarch, it is a subset of the powers of the monarchy and is subordinate to it. With respect to foreign policy the British government has always had the power to make and unmake any treaty it sees fit without offering recourse or recognizing any obligation. There is no constitutional mechanism within British law by which the obligations of Britain could be enforced should the British government disavow it. In the spirit of being neighbourly the British government is likely to seek an amicable break. However the EU has only a carrot and the threat of no carrots at the bargaining table, there is no stick. The EU can give the UK a good deal, or it can let the UK default to non member WTO rules. But it can't punish the UK without first obtaining the consent of the UK to be punished. Every agreement between nations exists only by the grace of those nations. No one has authority over another if one chooses to simply break agreements, outside of the threat of isolation or war. The UK is not some unique position on this. So yes, the UK has the option to ignore any financial commitment they leave behind. And it will be a real quick trip to diplomatic/economic isolation when they do. Nations live and die by their trustworthiness from the international community. | ||
| ||
