In my example, I was the EU. And the EU has said no - they aren't willing to make changes when the other side doesn't know what they want.
and you sound like an ignorant bartender sitting in austin making believe he knows jackshit about how the eu cummission actually works
Yes, I understand that you were talking about the EU. The EU is supposed to just say no. That is what they are supposed to do. So now let them do it and let's end this thing.
No - what the EU is supposed to do is what its best for the citizens of their member countries. They have quite clearly determined that a deal is a better outcome than no-deal. They can't negotiate an agreement when the other side doesn't know what it wants, but they *can* give them more time, which is exactly what they are doing. Outside of it being annoying to be in a wait-and-see mode, there's not much benefit for the EU to hurry the process.
You sound like someone who can't actually make a coherent argument so you just say a bunch of nonsense and hope no one calls you out on it. You are, after all, the person that thought New York was a drain on the US economy - something you blamed on not being here in a while, despite it never having been true in US history. You might want to consider that you might just be the ignorant bartender that knows jackshit.
barboy i've already detailed in this thread why it's in the eu's desperate interest to prevent a brexit, or even better to shove their bs withdrawal agreement down GB's throat. you speak in clueless generalities like "Do you think the UK secretly made a counterproposal to the EU?" when we have remainer may and only her having partnered up w/ the eu cummission the past two years, preventing anything other than their bs withdrawal agreement from coming to play. this despite the fact that GB has held all the cards here -- the eu stands to lose A LOT more from a no-deal brexit than GB does. regarding the rest of your post, going back twenty yrs now you've come in this forum attempting to masquerade as something more than a cuntry bumpkin bartender. if anything i do applaud your indomitable spirit.
It's like good cop and bad cop. I haven't read anything about it, but isn't is too much of a coincidence that all the countries that are hardliners now are the ones who benefit the most by the UK's fisheries? Blackmail to fastrack a fishery agreement most likely. All the TORIES in her cabinet? LOL the cabinet is consisted of only Tories in the first place. Also resigning is futile and meaningless just an act of protest, because even if they resign they can't fell the government due to the 2011 law. You have a complete false view of the political situation. The Tories in the cabinet themselves are of 2 different viewpoints. Rudd for example is the spearhead of soft Tories Brexiters while the cancellor is a Remainer. 10 out of 14 senior cabinet ministers voted IN FAVOUR of an extension. There is a war for the new Tory leadership between the moderates and the extremists : the Rudd Letwin and Grieve camp of soft Brexiters and the hardliners like Gove, Johnson and the ERG. Only in your mind does Tory = hard Brexiter.
There is no problem with the Withdrawal Agreement itself. Every party in the UK agrees with it except one, the DUP. For their own rightful reasons. Even the ERG part of the Tories, sold out and supported it. The problem is with the political declaration. So theres no shoving down anything. Almost everyone is already in agreement for it.
just like tsipras had no problem w/ and was all for the EUSSR's no-withdrawal agreement? i mean it's probably already been gone over earlier in this thread, but that deal commits GB to paying out membership fees to these broke whores without even representation, keeps them in the customs union without the chance to make trade agreements outside the eu (due to any one of 27 members being able to veto it down), and most ridiculously the jurisdiction for any disputes would be at the EKCJ (K=kangaroooo)
It doesn't. As soon as adequate technology is invented. And indeed at this moment of time, the british parliament has a clear majority for much further closer relationship than what May's WA has as framework. A custom union a norway style or revoking was the manifesto of most of the opossition parties before the elections in 2017... So who is shoving what under their throats? They are the ones who are bickering and infighting about it because they want a softer Brexit than May's..? THEY are the ones who want to pay to be ruletakers. The british MPs not the EU.
it's exactly true as you say that the majority of british MPs are remainers (bound to the eu extortion ring), many of whom are simply in direct contradiction to their constituents. but this does not mean that the withdrawal agreement is not a complete and utter joke for the people of GB (both remainers and leavers). no agreement at all is vastly better for them than signing that deal. look, these clowns in brussels are facing a massive liquidity crisis on the short horizon -- i don't know how else to explain that being a part of the coming shitshow is in no way beneficial to GB. zero & negative interest rates have forced banks to hunt for yields in the dumbest places, eg. spanish banks piling up turkish debt lol! these people are all trapped now stuck in toxic instruments. meanwhile, germany the engine of the european economy is contracting hard, and they would stand to be hurt most by a no-deal brexit. as you know, i live in the EU so personally i'd actually prefer GB to help keep this eu project afloat a bit longer, particularly since i also personally dislike GB
They arent remainers. Soft Brexiters. It is different than Remainers. Exactly why the Labour party right now is in front of an existential crisis. It is approximately like this. 1/3 Tories : Hard- No deal Brexit 2/3 Tories : Soft Brexit about 15 Tories : Remain 1/2 Labour : Soft Brexit 1/2 Labour : Remain Green, SNP, LibDem, Indepent Group : Remain DUP: Hard Brexit And talking about defying their constituents..The DUP should have been a REMAIN party. Parts of Belfast voted remain by 70% but we have their MPs supporting not even a soft Brexit but No Deal. Also many areas voted one way or another by a difference of 1-2% . That's not a clear call for a MP. And most important of all, during the referendum Brexit meant : SOFT Brexit. The no deal thing came years after. Not even the Tories manifesto was about No deal Brexit. So in conclusion the will of the people and their MPs was and is for a soft Brexit from the beginning. THEY are the ones who want to take rules and become a " vassal" state. Noone forced them they wanted it themselves. So don't go and blame the EU about forcing custom union. In fact it is better if there's no deal Brexit than having the UK as a Norway. And there is SERIOUS doubt if the EU will ever accept this. If the UK becomes like Norway then the lobby of the EETA countries will be immense. It will encourage a looser union as a viable alternative rather than a closer union. So in comparison to the risk, a Norway style agreement can potential become an existential crisis. While a no deal Brexit or a Canada style instead encourages a closer union when the EU citizens witness all the cluster**** that is going on. As I have said before due to the Brexit mess going on, other eurosceptic parties have completely abandoned already the notion to leave. Brexit has strengthened the will of the people around the continent and in the UK itself to remain.
so i can't agree with the bulk of this post. 1) i've never seen any indication during the referendum that a soft brexit was implied. but if you can point me to something supporting what you've said, i'd be grateful 2) the entire eurozone project centers around germany and it's export industry. a no-deal would be CATASTROPHE for that. their auto industry alone would be in freefall, as the UK is their biggest buyer. 3) i see eurosceptic parties gaining ground EU-wide next month probably getting ~35% of the seats
MP's are warning Theresa May that participating in the EU election will pose an 'existential threat' to the Tories. Delaying Brexit for EU elections will pose 'existential threat' to the Tories, MPs warn Theresa May To be fair, she knows this and has never supported participating in these elections. Of course making the decision of whether the UK will participate in these elections is not and should not be up to her. The UK Parliament voted to ask the EU for another short extension, which Theresa May did yesterday. There is some dispute remaining in Parliament about what the length of the extension should be. If they wanted it to be a different length, then they should have included the length in the extension request bill. In fact, this bill very strangely did not direct a specific length for the extension. Nor did it include a reason or a commitment to participate in the EU Parliamentary elections. It is interesting that the House of Lords has not finished passing this bill yet, but Theresa May acted on it anyway. After they finish passing the bill, the Parliament is supposed to debate and pass instructions relating to what the length of the extension request will be. One might have expected Theresa May to have waited until after that was done before preparing and sending the request, which included almost exactly the same terms as her original request. Of course what is notable about the time frames she has recommended is that none of them would require participating in the EU Parliamentary elections. She also repeated in the letter to the EU requesting the extension that she did not want to participate in these elections. Here is the link to the letter: Theresa May letter to Tusk in full The MP's warning Teresa May are right and she knows it. She has not supported participating in these elections and I expect she will leave it to Labour and the Remainers to propose any longer extension that would require doing so, and then make sure that they own that.
3.The eurosceptic parties have changed their course 180 degrees. Instead of advertising leaving the EU they have changed their manifesto to : stay and change it from the inside with our MEPs to the kind of EU we want. That's why Italy's Salvini, Orban, Polish populist party have had meetings. Though it's very important to note that it is considered unlikely to come to a mutual strategy in the end because there are serious difference in some domestic politices they pursue. So what you call eurosceptic is vastly different than UKIP right now. They aren't sceptic to the idea of the EU itself but to the current form. A good analogy if you live in europe is between various Communist parties and the other extreme left wingers. The communist parties have in their manifesto the abolition of the constitutions but the extreme left wingers want to bring some maybe similar changes but within the framework of the constitution. Maybe bad analogy but that's the best I can do. lol 2. I am not economist so I don't understand much beyond what I read. And what I have read is that the expected impact to the UK is a 9% of their economy while the other countries are projected to impacted much less. But in any case I was talking politically not economically. Politically a no deal Brexit is much less risky for the union than a Norway style. 1. Sure countless examples. "Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP who is often described as the “godfather of Brexit” repeatedly assured voters that Britain would not leave the single market if they voted to leave the EU. “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market,” he said. Owen Paterson, a Tory MP and a prominent campaigner for Vote Leave made similar claims. “Only a madman would actually leave the market,” Mr Paterson said. Since the referendum Ms May has repeatedly said that Brexit would mean leaving the single market. Following the referendum Oliver Norgrove, a former Vote Leave staffer, who supports staying in the single market, urged people to check the official campaign’s website and official literature – noting that the things they had campaigned for were “utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market”." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html These and the other lies and false promises are easy to find. On top of it, Leave campaign has already been found guilty by the courts of breaking the financing laws.
Wait, what? Brexit talks with Labour collapse as PM refuses demands for legally binding customs union and deal on EU workers’ rights Labour was expecting Mrs May to give them a customs union and match future EU workers’ rights as part of a make-or-break offer. But it claimed No 10 refused to enshrine the changes in the Brexit political declaration, which would have made them legally binding. Downing Street scrambled to try to resuscitate the negotiations. A spokesman said: “We have made serious proposals in talks this week and are prepared to pursue changes to the political declaration in order to deliver a deal that is acceptable to both sides. “We are ready to hold further detailed discussions this weekend to seek any such changes in the run-up to European Council on Wednesday. The Government is determined to work constructively to deliver the Brexit people voted for, and avoid participation in the European Parliamentary elections.” No customs union? Theresa May has consistently opposed one, so I do not know why this is a surprise. Except that the 'Fake news' press has been pushing the narrative that a customs union is what is going to happen, apparently expecting reality to reorder itself around their pronouncements. But as is so frequently the case, that is not happening. The Brexit talks between Labour and the Tories have apparently collapsed because the Tories would not let Labour have their way. Meanwhile, Theresa May appears to be continuing with her four-corners, run down the clock strategy. And again her government announces its commitment to avoid participating in the EU Parliamentary elections.
ya so hannan is also pro-TPP, and essentially a lobbyist for corporate bigs. i'm not sure he can really be considered the godfather of brexit, farage has certainly been the face of it and he's been shouting for a clean break since the beginning. incidentally, he also has a whole month of brexit speaking engagements lined up into late may and these have been scheduled since last year -- so behind the curtain it's been very obvious that brexit was going to be delayed. i'm not so sure about farage's true intentions either, as he does seem to need brexit in limbo in order for him to keep getting paid regarding eurosceptic parties, you may be right that some are painting a picture of trying to change the EU from within in a positive approach. perhaps this is a ruse to simply widen their vote collection... but in any case, once they get the seats and once the eurozone cracks, there will be more support to leave altogether. economically both parties lose in a no-deal brexit initially. but germany/france/etc lose a lot more than GB, and within a year GB is looking like DM after not getting parsons/bosh
