4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - gonvaled 8y ago
    > As every country should It is tiring to hear continuously what an exceptional country the UK is. We are all exceptional, but we all abide by the same rules. That's kind of the point of having a union. > The Guardian or [Russian-owned and ever deteriorating] Independent I read both too. I didn't know The Independent was Russian owned, but little matters. It seems a bit populist, but more balanced than the Telegraph. I find the Telegraph interesting because it is the Government's paper (/s), it seems to reflect the views of a big chunk of the British population, and because it is so extremely one-sided that it seems incredible that this is what nowadays passes by mainstream opinion (and by serious journalism) in the UK. The Guardian seems very balanced (boring?). > As Ireland or - good Lord, Luxembourg do now? As France intends? Sure. And if they cross a line, we have EU institutions to correct the situation. That is the point of being under the ECJ. The EU is not a "I blindly trust you" organization: it is a "you'd better stick to the agreements, otherwise you'll get into trouble: look, you signed here". This is how to build a community. Ireland, for example, has been fined for its tax practices (Apple). And you are overlooking a very important aspect: one thing is to have Ireland or Luxembourg offering discounted tax rates (which is already a problem, as we can see with all the tech companies being in those countries). But Ireland is nearly a tenth and Luxembourg a twentieth of the UK's size, in GDP terms ([1]). The UK being a tax heaven is a huge problem for the EU. > 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. The EU is also the only economic area without clearing being done in its territory, post-Brexit. It is a huge risk. If the only way to balance the situation is going against the interests of a third party, so be it. The EU does not concern itself anymore with the interests of the UK, in so far as those interests are not related to EU's interests. > I'm not sure what you mean by this I mean the repeated threats by the UK about withholding intelligence from the EU if other matters (trade deal) are not agreed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
handelaar 8y ago
The UK agreed to international-treaty level this year that it will do nothing under any circumstances which necessitate the reintroduction of an Irish border, not least because that would collapse the Good Friday Agreements. Two weeks ago Theresa May tore it up. Yes, the UK is an "unreliable partner". In its current regime of rule by imbeciles, there is no point negotiating with it nor coming to agreements with it, because the UK cannot be trusted to actually hold to those agreements from one month to the next.
- detritus 8y ago
  So.. do you think that the British govt's intention IS to introduce a hard border? I find that hard to imagine.
  - rcxdude 8y ago
    It's quite hard to work out what the UK government is intending to do at all. There's no unity within the government about what the priorities for negotiation are and there's been basically no proposals which have stood up for any length of time. (This was the biggest problem with the referendum: 'leave' encompassed a huge variety of possible options with very different outcomes, and it seems each leave voter was imagining their own version of this. I believe even if there was no change in any voters opinions there is no specific plan which would be preferred by the majority over remaining in the EU).
    - detritus 8y ago
      That was sort of the underlying point of my response here - I think we can agree that a worst-case scenario (to the British government, anyway) would be the creation of a hard border in Ireland.. ..the problem is that everything peripheral to that is a mess worthy of a drunken juggler. There's just too much conflicting to make any sense until 'something' is agreed. My personal suspicions (read: hopes) these last few months are apparently shared by Lord Owen (who does not hope) - namely that the apparent levels of shambolic disorganisation are actually a ploy to create such a mess that as much of the fallout from Brexit can be mitigated. I'd not be entirely surprised if the thing's drawn out another year or so and then somehow the entire enterprise is swep under the carpet and the UK tucks its tail between its legs and settles back where it should've never left in the first place. Bear in mind, there's no actual precedence for any of this - I believe if there was any way of getting the UK to stay, somehow, without excess compromise for the EU, 'rules would be broken' because.. well, there aren't any.

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.
- gonvaled 8y ago
  > As every country should It is tiring to hear continuously what an exceptional country the UK is. We are all exceptional, but we all abide by the same rules. That's kind of the point of having a union. > The Guardian or [Russian-owned and ever deteriorating] Independent I read both too. I didn't know The Independent was Russian owned, but little matters. It seems a bit populist, but more balanced than the Telegraph. I find the Telegraph interesting because it is the Government's paper (/s), it seems to reflect the views of a big chunk of the British population, and because it is so extremely one-sided that it seems incredible that this is what nowadays passes by mainstream opinion (and by serious journalism) in the UK. The Guardian seems very balanced (boring?). > As Ireland or - good Lord, Luxembourg do now? As France intends? Sure. And if they cross a line, we have EU institutions to correct the situation. That is the point of being under the ECJ. The EU is not a "I blindly trust you" organization: it is a "you'd better stick to the agreements, otherwise you'll get into trouble: look, you signed here". This is how to build a community. Ireland, for example, has been fined for its tax practices (Apple). And you are overlooking a very important aspect: one thing is to have Ireland or Luxembourg offering discounted tax rates (which is already a problem, as we can see with all the tech companies being in those countries). But Ireland is nearly a tenth and Luxembourg a twentieth of the UK's size, in GDP terms ([1]). The UK being a tax heaven is a huge problem for the EU. > 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. The EU is also the only economic area without clearing being done in its territory, post-Brexit. It is a huge risk. If the only way to balance the situation is going against the interests of a third party, so be it. The EU does not concern itself anymore with the interests of the UK, in so far as those interests are not related to EU's interests. > I'm not sure what you mean by this I mean the repeated threats by the UK about withholding intelligence from the EU if other matters (trade deal) are not agreed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

handelaar 8y ago

The UK agreed to international-treaty level this year that it will do nothing under any circumstances which necessitate the reintroduction of an Irish border, not least because that would collapse the Good Friday Agreements. Two weeks ago Theresa May tore it up. Yes, the UK is an "unreliable partner". In its current regime of rule by imbeciles, there is no point negotiating with it nor coming to agreements with it, because the UK cannot be trusted to actually hold to those agreements from one month to the next.

detritus 8y ago
So.. do you think that the British govt's intention IS to introduce a hard border? I find that hard to imagine.
- rcxdude 8y ago
  It's quite hard to work out what the UK government is intending to do at all. There's no unity within the government about what the priorities for negotiation are and there's been basically no proposals which have stood up for any length of time. (This was the biggest problem with the referendum: 'leave' encompassed a huge variety of possible options with very different outcomes, and it seems each leave voter was imagining their own version of this. I believe even if there was no change in any voters opinions there is no specific plan which would be preferred by the majority over remaining in the EU).
  - detritus 8y ago
    That was sort of the underlying point of my response here - I think we can agree that a worst-case scenario (to the British government, anyway) would be the creation of a hard border in Ireland.. ..the problem is that everything peripheral to that is a mess worthy of a drunken juggler. There's just too much conflicting to make any sense until 'something' is agreed. My personal suspicions (read: hopes) these last few months are apparently shared by Lord Owen (who does not hope) - namely that the apparent levels of shambolic disorganisation are actually a ploy to create such a mess that as much of the fallout from Brexit can be mitigated. I'd not be entirely surprised if the thing's drawn out another year or so and then somehow the entire enterprise is swep under the carpet and the UK tucks its tail between its legs and settles back where it should've never left in the first place. Bear in mind, there's no actual precedence for any of this - I believe if there was any way of getting the UK to stay, somehow, without excess compromise for the EU, 'rules would be broken' because.. well, there aren't any.