EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 477
| 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 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
"Dynamic alignment on rights and protections". So I will, yet again, say it. There will not be a compromise on the 4 freedoms. The EU will not accept "Dynamic" alignment and Corbyn knows it. Its all or nothing and the UK is currently voting for Nothing. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9275 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8232 Posts
https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-demands-to-renegotiate-brexit-deal-rejected-by-eu-2019-2?r=US&IR=T | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On February 07 2019 21:12 Gorsameth wrote: As other said it sounds like not leaving at all to me except for 1 line. "Dynamic alignment on rights and protections". So I will, yet again, say it. There will not be a compromise on the 4 freedoms. The EU will not accept "Dynamic" alignment and Corbyn knows it. Its all or nothing and the UK is currently voting for Nothing. Can you outline what 'Dynamic alignment' means? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On February 07 2019 21:45 Longshank wrote: Who knows, that's the wonder of Corbyn's statement, vague enough to mean whatever he wants.Can you outline what 'Dynamic alignment' means? But lets go with the Cambridge dictionary which says its "Full of energy/idea's" or "Changing". The first definition imo doesn't fit here so lets go with Changing. "Changing alignment on rights and protections". Again, nice and vague to mean anything. But we know what Brexit was about, ending the free movement of people into the UK and a return of sovereignty. So I don't think its a stretch to mean taking on some rights and protections from the EU while ignoring others. Which, the EU has been every clear about, is a no deal situation. You take it all or you get none of it. On February 07 2019 21:20 Sent. wrote: Because transition periods are something different from only taking on some parts of the 4 freedoms and downright denying others. Like the UK's idea of access to the free transfer of goods and services without the free movement of people, not just for a transitional period but as a permanent deal.If the four freedoms were absolutely non-negotiable, there would be no long transitional periods for countries that joined the EU in 2004. The restrictions of freedom of movement ended in 2011. The EU has been more then clear on this. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On February 07 2019 22:17 Gorsameth wrote: Who knows, that's the wonder of Corbyn's statement, vague enough to mean whatever he wants. But lets go with the Cambridge dictionary which says its "Full of energy/idea's" or "Changing". The first definition imo doesn't fit here so lets go with Changing. "Changing alignment on rights and protections". Again, nice and vague to mean anything. But we know what Brexit was about, ending the free movement of people into the UK and a return of sovereignty. So I don't think its a stretch to mean taking on some rights and protections from the EU while ignoring others. Which, the EU has been every clear about, is a no deal situation. You take it all or you get none of it. Because transition periods are something different from only taking on some parts of the 4 freedoms and downright denying others. Like the UK's idea of access to the free transfer of goods and services without the free movement of people, not just for a transitional period but as a permanent deal. The EU has been more then clear on this. I just find it weird to shoot something down as dead and unworkable before you even know what the suggestion is. It's worth noting that he in this letter has scratched the 'identical benefits as the single market' bit. He's said in the past that there will have to be movement of people, even if he didn't want to call it free. It's not outside the realm of possibility that there could be some level of access to the single market in exchange for some level of freedom of movement, even if it would be difficult to negotiate. At this point it sure as hell would be something worth bringing to the EU for discussion. The EU can be flexible when need be, as seen with the UK wide backstop. The rules of the EU would never allow that yet here we are. | ||
|
korrekt
76 Posts
Right now, the situation seems pretty clear to me. The EU pretty much offered three different packages from the start: membership, participation in the single market with regulations but without a vote (a la norway or switzerland) or no membership and a trade deal (well, there's also no trade deal, but that would be bonkers). The first two mean no border checks and free movement, the third one means border checks and no free movement. That's what is on the table and, apart from minor details that can be negotiated, nothing else. The UK decided to leave the EU and as far as I understood most people that voted to leave were doing it majorly to end free movement. While I do not agree witht that point, I can accept this decision. However, because in the EU free movement is tied to tax-free trade, this decision comes with an economic price (at least in the next decade, because the economy is aligned with being in the EU and being in the EU also offers some additional advantages), which brexit promoting politicians did not communicate and still don't communicate to this day. Right now it seems like the EU, on the other hand, is also willing to pay the economic price of the UK just crashing out with no deal, if the UK cannot agree to any of the other options, because it wants to keep its basic principles in place. And even though I do think there is a lot you can criticize about the EU, that is one point I absolutely agree with. The UK has every option of staying close to or within the EU and they can also take the negotiated trade deal. They can also chose to not have a trade deal with the EU directly after leaving, if that's what they want. But I don't think there is any point for the EU to keep on negotiating with the UK until the house decides that is a deal they like. Thy want to keep all the good stuff and have no interest in sharing some of the costs. Of course they will vote for a better deal. Of course they don't want to make any economic sacrifices. But why should the EU care? I feel like the UKs position is, because they want to leave, the EU has to change the very principle it is based on. But that is just not a feasible position. Just put the available options on the table and let either the house or the public decide which one they like best. Just get it over with... (I do know the UK is not a single entity and I know there is a lot of people who voted to stay/changed their minds/voted to leave for entirely different reasons. It's kinda sad to see the UK leave the EU, but I think at this point there is no way the UK staying would be a good idea. Still, much love to the UK and its inhabitants. It's a sad situation either way.) | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
@faisalislam Leaving Brussels - belief on EU side that Corbyn letter to PM is a “game changer” mentioned to PM directly by Tusk and Verhofstadt. Why? Because the people that matter here are unconvinced that the PM can deliver a majority of Commons having been previously promised one. Also plenty of reports on how May was forced to discuss Corbyn's "promising" letter with the EU leaders. Sucks to be May! | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5753 Posts
On February 07 2019 21:20 Sent. wrote: If the four freedoms were absolutely non-negotiable, there would be no long transitional periods for countries that joined the EU in 2004. The restrictions of freedom of movement ended in 2011. That's totally different. Those countries needed to prepare for a potential influx of people so that their infrastructures could cope with it. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On February 08 2019 06:18 maybenexttime wrote: More the other way around, some of the older EU nations were worried about cheap labour from the new nations flooding in and disrupting the market.That's totally different. Those countries needed to prepare for a potential influx of people so that their infrastructures could cope with it. But as said, its was a transition period, something similar to what the EU offered with the backstop. Not an outright 'we want this without that' that the UK has asked for. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5753 Posts
On February 08 2019 07:01 Gorsameth wrote: More the other way around, some of the older EU nations were worried about cheap labour from the new nations flooding in and disrupting the market. But as said, its was a transition period, something similar to what the EU offered with the backstop. Not an outright 'we want this without that' that the UK has asked for. I meant services like the healthcare service or the police. Those services not coping well with the influx was partly what led to Brexit. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
901 Posts
On February 08 2019 00:42 Longshank wrote: He's said in the past that there will have to be movement of people, even if he didn't want to call it free. It's not outside the realm of possibility that there could be some level of access to the single market in exchange for some level of freedom of movement, even if it would be difficult to negotiate How is this still a thing?? | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
Dunno, the EU seems to think it's something worth discussing at least. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5753 Posts
On February 09 2019 15:42 Longshank wrote: Dunno, the EU seems to think it's something worth discussing at least. They don't? That's one of the red lines? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
- unregulated armament sales (EU has rules an can prosecute when broken) - unregulated financial affairs (parties in UK parliament want London to become a tax heaven(or, more of a tax heaven depending on how you look at it)); from bbc - "George Osborne, David Cameron and Treasury mandarins". also: https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-as-a-tax-haven-it-already-is-brexit-article-50-eu-negotiations-theresa-may/ Finally, the U.K. has long offered a deliberately soft touch on financial regulation. American authorities, for example, were dismayed, if not altogether surprised, to find that it was the London operations of a number of U.S. financial institutions that blew up during the financial crisis. in a nutshell, that would be something that will(or at least try to) satisfy the different interests within the UK parliament and with the MP's.The European Union, by contrast, has led the way in the fight against tax havens. The EU's savings directive set the global standard on automatic processes for exchanging banking information and took important steps in establishing public registers of the beneficial ownership of companies in its new anti-money laundering directive. State aid investigations spearheaded by the EU also challenge corporate tax abuses, as in the case of corporate giants such as Apple, Starbucks and Fiat. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22085 Posts
On February 09 2019 15:42 Longshank wrote: Where have you been getting this idea from?Dunno, the EU seems to think it's something worth discussing at least. The EU has repeatedly said no to it, has said there is no major renegotiation possible on the current deal and talks this week had no result. | ||
|
Eteoneus
20 Posts
| ||
| ||
