Except for the fact that you can't. Because you are too unimportant.
Enjoy all the herring.
Congratulations America
We're a major global economic power, a G7 economy. Not unimportant by any means. Forecast to potentially overtake Germany as the largest individually economy in Europe this century.
You can do what you want in your protectionist bloc if you want to, but you can't exert power on us beyond that.
You are a small island economy of the coast of Europe. None of things you mentioned is going to change that. Our rules will be more important for you than whatever you decide independently.
Congratulations America
"No self-respecting country would abide by the provisions of a treaty it has negotiated and signed" is a statement that's just dripping with self-respect innit
Sure, in the same way that telling your girlfriend you intend to sleep with her best friend in a few years' time is insurance against her rejecting you when you propose.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What Rand still does not get: Any and all trade treaties rely on a partial cessation of sovereignty.
Insisting on total sovereignty is akin to saying that you do not want any trade agreement. North Korea comes to mind. They're so sovereign!
Yeah. Was that from before or after Brexit? Before the pandemic?
Also, any other things your soothsayerspulled out of their assgleaned from their crystal balls? You realize that we're talking about a timespan of 80 years here?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
We're projected to have a much higher population isn't the great argument he thinks it is.
FWIW, there is no actual decrease in sovereignty from a treaty that was entered willingly. Sovereignty means the freedom to make important decisions without too much foreign interference (some always exists); it does not mean freedom from consequences for bad decisions. Though I could see why Brexiters would make that mistake.
Hope is the denial of reality
I see a lot of people say that it's common for the EU to agree deals at the last minute, or "at the 11th hour", but I'm not entirely sure I understand that. Aren't deals without a time-limit like this one always agreed "at the last minute"? Has a time-limit ever applied to EU deals before?
I really hope there's a deal. Really, really hope there's a deal.
Looks like BoJo and UvdL are going to talk about it themselves as the final act.
Am I correct in thinking that UvdL has no authority to change anything about the EU's negotiating strategy?
Not entirely, she is fully in charge of the negotiating strategy. However, she would be working within the constraints of the same mandate as Barnier. Which means she has no more powers than he had to cross the red lines on the level playing field (which is by far the hardest dossier in the negotiations. In a way your PM is coming to Brussels to talk with our highest civil servant.
De Pfeffel was extremely stupid when he set his own hard deadlines, it made him end up in the present situation where he's got to make a choice between two dogs dinners.
Last edited by Hazir; 12-07-2020 at 07:53 PM.
Congratulations America
And BlowJob is going to blow it. And then blame us.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
See how the resident Brexitard doesn't understand what happened 11 months ago. He doesn't understand the UK no longer is a member of the EU. De Pfeffel no longer is one of the people who play that game. He's not invited to the arena. He can talk to the help though.
Congratulations America
They were not, it's extremely unusual for trade negotiations to haven an actual deadline. Also, they were end-negotiations between people who between themselves could decide. No last minute negotiations on the principles of long term relations.
Something that makes talks between the EU and UK so extremely difficult is the utter lack of understanding of how the EU works on the UK side. Which is a remarkable achievement given that the UK was a member for over 40 years.
Congratulations America
And at least some semblance of sanity prevailed: Breaking international law is off the table.
Seems that someone on the UK side finally got his act together.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It's really quite weird to see you so pleased with the UK unnecessarily shitting its own pants by preparing to break international in anticipation of a problem that would likely have been resolved anyway. While you should be grateful the EU gave you a means of saving face by letting you climb down from the untenable position of being wilful lawbreakers, the reality is that the damage to your reputation has already been done. The stink will adhere to your nation for half a generation.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't give a fuck about "breaking international law" though. All nations do it from time to time. The UK has done it before. I have always said the UK can do it haven't I?
Germany did the same recently, I don't recall any bedwetting or shitting trousers about it then. The UK does it, not for the first time, not for the last time, and all of a sudden you're aghast like a cartoon 1950s woman seeing a mouse.
It is extremely rare for a modern democracy to break international law by wilfully violating its negotiated treaty obligations. Some kinds of international law can be tested or outright broken without it being a huge deal, but violating treaty obligations is exceedingly rare—hence the reaction to the UK indicating its willingness to shit its own pants as some sort of "insurance". Pacta sunt servanda remains a foundational principle of international law as well as basic human morality; only good-for-nothing shitheads whose own word cannot be trusted defend nations breaking their word.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Bullshit. Nations do it all the time, your whinging and whining is self-serving put on affectation that convinces nobody. You're preaching to your own choir.
The rest of the world understands all this back and forth is just a part of the Brexit process and don't care about it - which is why the UK was able to sign new deals with Japan and Canada in the days afterwards while you were still claiming that nobody would trust the UK again.
Nations pull power moves all the time and do what they can get away with all the time. If you're outraged then get used to it, every country does it and now we're an independent country we can and should be comfortable to do it whenever it suits our own interests just as everyone else already does.
I'm interested to know what you mean by this. Do you mean England?
I'm glad we've backed down. We should have never threatened to renege on parts of a treaty we agreed to only a few months ago and we'd have been furious if the EU had done the same. I hope this brings us closer to a deal.
Also, if law breaking like this is so common, mainstream and not a big deal, I'm sure the HoL would have approved it. I don't think it's as trivial as you believe it to be.
Last edited by gogobongopop; 12-08-2020 at 04:40 PM.
I don't think breaking international law is ever something to be just glossed over.
Laws and treaties are written and agreed to for good reason, and commitment to be bound by them never taken lightly.
And saying "nations do it all the time" is also piss-poor reasoning to do so yourself. Not that I am aware of such things being broken all the time.
Brexitard doesn't understand that part of the reason why his country can't get a fta with its biggest trade partner lies in the willingness to break the law.
Congratulations America
By all means, give us ten examples, from the past ten years, of nations similar to the UK preparing to renege on their negotiated treaty obligations outright, in a self-confessed violation of international law.
Prominent American politicians expressed a range of views ranging from concern to outright condemnation, going so far as to indicate that a UK-US trade agreement would not get through congress if the UK were to violate the provisions of the WA wrt NI. That this ridiculous move did not immediately halt nearly finalized negotiations on the roll-over of unrelated treaties is no indication of anything; Japan was able to wait to see how it would play out before having to ratify, and is also able to take the UK's actions into consideration in future negotiations for accession to CPTPP.The rest of the world understands all this back and forth is just a part of the Brexit process and don't care about it - which is why the UK was able to sign new deals with Japan and Canada in the days afterwards while you were still claiming that nobody would trust the UK again.
I'm sorry but this is delusional nonsense. You'd be hard-pressed to find many modern examples of comparable nations willfully attempting to break treaty obligations in what they themselves acknowledge to be a violation of international law. Like I said: give us ten examples, from the past ten years, of nations similar to the UK preparing to renege on their negotiated treaty obligations outright, in a self-confessed violation of international law.Nations pull power moves all the time and do what they can get away with all the time. If you're outraged then get used to it, every country does it and now we're an independent country we can and should be comfortable to do it whenever it suits our own interests just as everyone else already does.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."