3 ms·

But not on the same terms: it is questionable if access to Galileo for example will continue, and if it does, what kind of access level the UK will have. As a

But not on the same terms: it is questionable if access to Galileo for example will continue, and if it does, what kind of access level the UK will have. As a EU citizen, I worry that a fierce competitor (and in some aspects a potential foe) is going to be (mis-?) using EU infrastructure. Why would the EU choose to be put at a disadvantage by giving the UK more negotiating tokens? We have seen that the UK tries to advance negotiations in some areas by using leverage from other areas. Which is fine, it is part of the game. Let's just avoid falling into more traps. The underlying problem is that of trust: trust is not the right tool to build international relationships: independent institutions must be there to arbitrate whenever disputes arise. But the UK refuses to be held to account. It is thus an unreliable partner.

detritus 8y ago
> But the UK refuses to be held to account. It is thus an unreliable partner. Really? Crikey, I had no idea paranoia ran so deep on the European side[1]. Would you care to expand on why Britain apparently refuses to be held to account? As far as I'm aware, Britain is one of the most compliant members of the EU ruleset - aside from our much mentioned and ascribed financial concessions[2], our government doesn't tend to bend the rules to its own whims, as is often the case in France, Spain and Germany (re: abuse of subsidies and stature to corporate behemoths to go on spending sprees on infrastructure concerns in other EU states, in energy and construction in particular). Galileo is a seperate concern - an EU project whose delivery will be overseen by ESA - and I appreciate the use of it as a pawn in the Brexit negotiations. However, that does somewhat fly in the face of the FrancoAnglo drive towards military cooperation anad partnership, which given the spend and reach of the two largest military EU nations, would make sense to not toy with too much. To then go further and view the UK as a foe, whereas prior it was seen as a jigsaw-fit partner (we don't have any launch capability or ambitions to do so otherwise) seems .. well, as I said - paranoid. Brexit's division is not so much divisory as putting a foot down. It's a sentiment shared across Europe, and not acknowledging that is dangerous, I think. Anyway, love from the UK - we're not out to get you - I think we're just keeping trying to keep our options open. [1] I don't for a minute think it does - my partner and most of my friends are European and this whole Brexit mess is a frequent topic of conversation. Your stance here is the first I've come across that draws things in such stark, 'cold war' terms. I wonder if you hold the same opinion of the classes in France, Italy and Germany who are as equally unkeen on the European government? Is Britain somehow a deserving outlier of this mode of thinking? [2] mostly in regard to CAP spending, which now even Macron is beginning to appreciate the damage it causes
- gonvaled 8y ago
  As a member (one would assume a "remain" country), the UK has been getting the best deal of the lot, and has been complaining for over 40 years, asking more and more. It has consistently used the EU as escape goat. Not particularly fair. As a future partner (a "brexit" country, which is a completely different beast, since it will be one can assume steered by brexiteers, with a position towards the EU between animosity and hatred), the signals coming from the UK are very worrying. From the top of my head, some things I have been reading lately (mainly in the Telegraph, I do not bother with the Daily Mail or The Sun, which are probably much worse): - the UK will undercut the EU in taxes - the UK will leverage its financial prowess to extract concessions from the EU - intelligence capabilities will be used to further put pressure on the EU And many, many more. Regarding the willingness of be held to account: the UK refuses to let the ECJ be the arbitrer of future disputes. What does this mean? Either there must be no arbitrer (so not held to account), or we need a new arbitrer (why more red tape?)
  - detritus 8y ago
    > asking more and more As every country should. I guess it's down to a difference in philosophy - we've long been a nation of shopkeepers, after all. Much like the Dutch. There's little new here, other than a hesitation to subsidise the French. These are ancient games and I'm sure a root of De Gaulle's reticence about the UK's joining. As I said, from my perspective, I see that at worst the UK plays by the rules, but lobbies for those rules to work in its favour, rather than simply ignoring them when it suits. > Telegraph aka, 'Torygraph', a right wing broadsheet with questionable interests and a fully-Brexiteering vehicle. I follow it too, but only to see what those at the periphery are thinking. For balance, check The Guardian or [Russian-owned and ever deteriorating] Independent for a completely different perspective of thought from within the UK. I'm sure there are equivalent publications in other European nations. > the UK will undercut the EU in taxes As Ireland or - good Lord, Luxembourg do now? As France intends? > the UK will leverage its financial prowess to extract concessions from the EU You mean the threat for 'tit for tat' measures against the EU if it continues to threaten The City with hard-line against Euro Clearing? Hardly surprising when the EU is the only principal reserve currency suddenly insisting that its clearing be done 'in-house', apparently with the sole intention of clawing some banking onto the continent. > intelligence capabilities will be used to further put pressure on the EU I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I hardly see the French and German intelligence agencies as being any less capable or unscrupulous. Here in Blighty we're just more public-facing about capability and intent. Getting back to Galileo for a second, it was the UK's role in Galileo to provide some of the more complex cryptographic aspects of the system - I find it odd how a country can go from trusted partner to polar opposite based on a flawed referendum by its people.
codeisawesome 8y ago
I find your usage of the wording “potential foe” to be fascinating. How would the UK ever hope or want to have a militant-aggressive stance against the rest of EU, in the age of nuclear tipped ICBMs, NATO, and list of actors ever ready to step into such a rift and cause chaos? I mean, that doesn’t stop India & Pakistan to be dancing on that edge, so I guess there’s that. But really interesting that this possibility is even on anyone’s mind though.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  Economic foe. No signals of military tensions, and I do not expect this to change. Still, having the 6th economy of the world as a tax heaven in the shores of the EU is not very reassuring.

detritus 8y ago

> But the UK refuses to be held to account. It is thus an unreliable partner. Really? Crikey, I had no idea paranoia ran so deep on the European side[1]. Would you care to expand on why Britain apparently refuses to be held to account? As far as I'm aware, Britain is one of the most compliant members of the EU ruleset - aside from our much mentioned and ascribed financial concessions[2], our government doesn't tend to bend the rules to its own whims, as is often the case in France, Spain and Germany (re: abuse of subsidies and stature to corporate behemoths to go on spending sprees on infrastructure concerns in other EU states, in energy and construction in particular). Galileo is a seperate concern - an EU project whose delivery will be overseen by ESA - and I appreciate the use of it as a pawn in the Brexit negotiations. However, that does somewhat fly in the face of the FrancoAnglo drive towards military cooperation anad partnership, which given the spend and reach of the two largest military EU nations, would make sense to not toy with too much. To then go further and view the UK as a foe, whereas prior it was seen as a jigsaw-fit partner (we don't have any launch capability or ambitions to do so otherwise) seems .. well, as I said - paranoid. Brexit's division is not so much divisory as putting a foot down. It's a sentiment shared across Europe, and not acknowledging that is dangerous, I think. Anyway, love from the UK - we're not out to get you - I think we're just keeping trying to keep our options open. [1] I don't for a minute think it does - my partner and most of my friends are European and this whole Brexit mess is a frequent topic of conversation. Your stance here is the first I've come across that draws things in such stark, 'cold war' terms. I wonder if you hold the same opinion of the classes in France, Italy and Germany who are as equally unkeen on the European government? Is Britain somehow a deserving outlier of this mode of thinking? [2] mostly in regard to CAP spending, which now even Macron is beginning to appreciate the damage it causes

gonvaled 8y ago
As a member (one would assume a "remain" country), the UK has been getting the best deal of the lot, and has been complaining for over 40 years, asking more and more. It has consistently used the EU as escape goat. Not particularly fair. As a future partner (a "brexit" country, which is a completely different beast, since it will be one can assume steered by brexiteers, with a position towards the EU between animosity and hatred), the signals coming from the UK are very worrying. From the top of my head, some things I have been reading lately (mainly in the Telegraph, I do not bother with the Daily Mail or The Sun, which are probably much worse): - the UK will undercut the EU in taxes - the UK will leverage its financial prowess to extract concessions from the EU - intelligence capabilities will be used to further put pressure on the EU And many, many more. Regarding the willingness of be held to account: the UK refuses to let the ECJ be the arbitrer of future disputes. What does this mean? Either there must be no arbitrer (so not held to account), or we need a new arbitrer (why more red tape?)
- detritus 8y ago
  > asking more and more As every country should. I guess it's down to a difference in philosophy - we've long been a nation of shopkeepers, after all. Much like the Dutch. There's little new here, other than a hesitation to subsidise the French. These are ancient games and I'm sure a root of De Gaulle's reticence about the UK's joining. As I said, from my perspective, I see that at worst the UK plays by the rules, but lobbies for those rules to work in its favour, rather than simply ignoring them when it suits. > Telegraph aka, 'Torygraph', a right wing broadsheet with questionable interests and a fully-Brexiteering vehicle. I follow it too, but only to see what those at the periphery are thinking. For balance, check The Guardian or [Russian-owned and ever deteriorating] Independent for a completely different perspective of thought from within the UK. I'm sure there are equivalent publications in other European nations. > the UK will undercut the EU in taxes As Ireland or - good Lord, Luxembourg do now? As France intends? > the UK will leverage its financial prowess to extract concessions from the EU You mean the threat for 'tit for tat' measures against the EU if it continues to threaten The City with hard-line against Euro Clearing? Hardly surprising when the EU is the only principal reserve currency suddenly insisting that its clearing be done 'in-house', apparently with the sole intention of clawing some banking onto the continent. > intelligence capabilities will be used to further put pressure on the EU I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I hardly see the French and German intelligence agencies as being any less capable or unscrupulous. Here in Blighty we're just more public-facing about capability and intent. Getting back to Galileo for a second, it was the UK's role in Galileo to provide some of the more complex cryptographic aspects of the system - I find it odd how a country can go from trusted partner to polar opposite based on a flawed referendum by its people.

codeisawesome 8y ago

I find your usage of the wording “potential foe” to be fascinating. How would the UK ever hope or want to have a militant-aggressive stance against the rest of EU, in the age of nuclear tipped ICBMs, NATO, and list of actors ever ready to step into such a rift and cause chaos? I mean, that doesn’t stop India & Pakistan to be dancing on that edge, so I guess there’s that. But really interesting that this possibility is even on anyone’s mind though.

gonvaled 8y ago
Economic foe. No signals of military tensions, and I do not expect this to change. Still, having the 6th economy of the world as a tax heaven in the shores of the EU is not very reassuring.