Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

You want to make this religious. It's not. I believe Khend was trying to allege the same thing. But the concepts apply beyond those topics. And your attempt to conflate it with religious beliefs is a flat-out bid at demonizing them, the same way Hazir does to you.

Not all faith is religious. Political apostasy can be more serious than any other. You see the same with parties all the time - political apostates and heretics can be hated much more than heathens.

[RandBlade]

Right Khend so which is it? Were we signed up to political union or not? As you seem to be claiming on this page alone let alone on this thread that we both knew all along we were signed up to that and it's obvious ... and we never were signed up to it in the first place. So which is it?

[Hazir]

Right Khend so which is it? Were we signed up to political union or not? As you seem to be claiming on this page alone let alone on this thread that we both knew all along we were signed up to that and it's obvious ... and we never were signed up to it in the first place. So which is it?

Wouldn't it be your job to explain why you sign up to something you're against in the first place? After your decision to leave I think we can not only absolve ourselves from that duty but - and I will say here Thank God - the question has lost relevance to us.

Or, why don't you just bugger off with your warped opinions about the EU and 'take back' control of something.

FYI : 490 days left.

[Aimless]

Pleas from industry representatives:

Aerospace: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...xit-trade-deal

Logistics: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rs-on-insanity

Auto: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-customs-union

Meanwhile, India confirms (as expected) that a comprehensive free trade agreement with the UK will probably take a long time to conclude and require concessions on immigration: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8073516.html

As expected, increasingly uncertain & unpleasant situation for EU nationals in the UK:

Twitter Link (link to article)

And a closer look:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...ed-eu-citizens

Of course, it's just the UK exercising its rights

In other news, Little Englanders are outraged by the EU's enforcement of EU legislation in the form of a "petty" decision to disqualify British cities from being designated European Capital of Culture several years after the UK leaves the EU:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...als-of-culture

It appears they didn't read the bold print about how you have to be in a member state, a candidate state, an EFTA state or otherwise part of the EEA.

Business as usual then.

[Aimless]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...als-of-culture

It appears they didn't read the bold print about how you have to be in a member state, a candidate state, an EFTA state or otherwise part of the EEA.

Ohhhhh... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rs-abandoning/

Well that explains it.

[RandBlade]

The European Capital of Culture decision was incredibly petty and it was the timing that made it especially so. The UK being scheduled to have one of the two capitals of culture was determined a long time ago. The UK being scheduled to leave the EU was determined over a year ago, it was announced we'd leave the EEA over a year ago, with formal A50 notice eight months ago.

Nothing has changed, the EU could have determined to announce that the UK wouldn't be getting the capital of culture post-Brexit if we leave the EEA months ago. Instead nothing was said so things proceeded as planned. Earlier this week the various cities involved in the competition to be selected submitted their bids that were due, after public expense and consultation etc - the next day it was announced that the bids were moot as they were ineligible.

It was incredibly petty. That could have been said months ago prior to the bids being made rather than waiting until afterwards.

EDIT: Your second post with that link wasn't there when I loaded this page. See that article is dated Nov 16 and refers to the competition to choose the host city starting in December [2016]. The whole competition has proceeded over a 12 month period and nothing has changed between now and 12 months ago other than formal notification being given early in the process.

[Khendraja'aro]

Instead nothing was said so things proceeded as planned. Earlier this week the various cities involved in the competition to be selected submitted their bids that were due, after public expense and consultation etc - the next day it was announced that the bids were moot as they were ineligible.

Maybe the cities in question should have actually ASKED what their new status was after Brexit? Always takes two to Tango, you know?

This is like one of those divorce proceedings where one party assumes that they'll get to keep the dog - without every asking the other party who's the actual owner of the dog.

[Aimless]

The European Capital of Culture decision was incredibly petty and it was the timing that made it especially so. The UK being scheduled to have one of the two capitals of culture was determined a long time ago. The UK being scheduled to leave the EU was determined over a year ago, it was announced we'd leave the EEA over a year ago, with formal A50 notice eight months ago.

Nothing has changed, the EU could have determined to announce that the UK wouldn't be getting the capital of culture post-Brexit if we leave the EEA months ago. Instead nothing was said so things proceeded as planned. Earlier this week the various cities involved in the competition to be selected submitted their bids that were due, after public expense and consultation etc - the next day it was announced that the bids were moot as they were ineligible.

It was incredibly petty. That could have been said months ago prior to the bids being made rather than waiting until afterwards.

EDIT: Your second post with that link wasn't there when I loaded this page. See that article is dated Nov 16 and refers to the competition to choose the host city starting in December [2016]. The whole competition has proceeded over a 12 month period and nothing has changed between now and 12 months ago other than formal notification being given early in the process.

You're incorrect. While most people have seen the breakdown in negotiations coming a mile away, the official position on both sides was to hold on to the fiction of a close relationship, which was still believable until govt. belatedly set down its red lines that made such a close relationship extremely unlikely.

[RandBlade]

Belatedly set down its red lines? Please tell me a single red line that was put down belatedly that was not put down last year?

[Aimless]

How is it that you're confused about this? When do you think the article 50 notification was made? When do you think the negotiations began? When do you think May held her speech in Florence? When do you think the creepy-ass letter from Johnson & Gove was released to the public?

[Aimless]

Great sadness: http://www.businessinsider.com/karan...mments-2017-11

[Hazir]

The European Capital of Culture decision was incredibly petty and it was the timing that made it especially so. The UK being scheduled to have one of the two capitals of culture was determined a long time ago. The UK being scheduled to leave the EU was determined over a year ago, it was announced we'd leave the EEA over a year ago, with formal A50 notice eight months ago.

Nothing has changed, the EU could have determined to announce that the UK wouldn't be getting the capital of culture post-Brexit if we leave the EEA months ago. Instead nothing was said so things proceeded as planned. Earlier this week the various cities involved in the competition to be selected submitted their bids that were due, after public expense and consultation etc - the next day it was announced that the bids were moot as they were ineligible.

It was incredibly petty. That could have been said months ago prior to the bids being made rather than waiting until afterwards.

EDIT: Your second post with that link wasn't there when I loaded this page. See that article is dated Nov 16 and refers to the competition to choose the host city starting in December [2016]. The whole competition has proceeded over a 12 month period and nothing has changed between now and 12 months ago other than formal notification being given early in the process.

You don't really want Brexit do you? At least, you're not willing to accept anything that's a logical result of Brexit.

But let me remind you; Brexit is Brexit, everywhere.

And it gets funnier, because it turns out to be yet another Bozo Fuckup

[Aimless]

Pushback on proposed WTO quota-splitting plan from Australia, NZ, Canada, US, Brazil:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-import-quotas

"This is largely a technical process"

Business leaders gnash their teeth:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/934356990217916416

[Hazir]

Pushback on proposed WTO quota-splitting plan from Australia, NZ, Canada, US, Brazil:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-import-quotas

"This is largely a technical process"

Business leaders gnash their teeth:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/934356990217916416

Seems that they are not going to make the deadline either.

I think they should simply walk away from it and start dealing with the fall out of the disaster that’s Brexit. There is no way for them to make a deal as they are too divided internally.

[Aimless]

In order to distract people from the increasingly disgusting Brexiteer rhetoric, Govt/DExEU have delivered 39 rather than the promised 58 reports, with Davis admitting that they've withheld a substantial amount of information, apparently in contempt of parliament. Honestly, what a bunch of shitheads. I'm sorry but I don't think there is a more accurate term.

[Aimless]

This is a tragedy:

http://jackofkent.com/2017/11/the-ea...ctor-analyses/

[RandBlade]

I fail to see the tragedy. Seems rather consistent really.

[Aimless]

... until evidence begins to indicate that they were not, in fact, anything like what was described.

[RandBlade]

Under the Thirty Year Rule any reports compiled in 2016/7 should be released to the public domain by 2036/7 (no mistake there).

[Hazir]

Under the Thirty Year Rule any reports compiled in 2016/7 should be released to the public domain by 2036/7 (no mistake there).

please tell me more about your Parliament being sovereign. It's such an interesting concept.

[Aimless]

UK governance currently appears to consist of govt lying to parliament and parliament saying "grrr we're so mad at u lol", not unlike the situation in the US.

[RandBlade]

please tell me more about your Parliament being sovereign. It's such an interesting concept.

Parliament is sovereign. If we're not happy with how the executive is developing things then Parliament can no confidence it (a very real possibility with a Hung Parliament) and if we're not happy with how Parliament is doing its job we can elect a new one at the next election.

There's no nation in the world that I can think of that doesn't have an executive.

It's not only the law that not everything has to be released, but Parliament itself voted to keep private anything confidential for the negotiations as Aimless's link says repeatedly.

[Aimless]

https://amp.ft.com/content/ec3bc989-...d-0f7b778719a8

[RandBlade]

Do you think this is an unreasonable line or argument to exist in Britain's transparency document?

“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect UK interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the UK.”

[Aimless]

I'm astounded by your extremely selective reading of these articles. Like, not in a good way.

[RandBlade]

I'm asking you a question, is that reasonable logic for the British government to use or not?

[Aimless]

I'm asking you a question, is that reasonable logic for the British government to use or not?

It is not, and their actions, taken as a whole, have been even more unreasonable. It makes the govt the sole arbiter of what information parliament can be entrusted with and it hampers parliament significantly. In addition, it puts the lie to government's promises as well as potentially constituting contempt of parliament. The linked articles suggest that the govt. can't be trusted on anything it says about these reports. This behavior would be considered disgraceful and embarrassing by any modern standard of democracy.

[RandBlade]

OK that's interesting because that text didn't come from the British government. It came from the EU's "Transparency in EU trade negotiations" Factsheet. I copied and pasted it deleting switching references to EU to UK. The original text was: “A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”

[Hazir]

I'm asking you a question, is that reasonable logic for the British government to use or not?

I have to presume you think yourself awfully smart by tripping up Aimless with that trick. But the fact of the matter is not what is or is not reasonable, but if the British government should be playing this kind of games with Parliament. Taking back control so far only has meant that your Government doesn't want to do any power sharing with its own Legislative.

[Aimless]

OK that's interesting because that text didn't come from the British government. It came from the EU's "Transparency in EU trade negotiations" Factsheet. I copied and pasted it deleting switching references to EU to UK. The original text was: “A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”

Yes, and you should contrast how the EU has implemented this with how the British government has. My criticism is applicable to the British govt's approach and its treatment of British MPs but not particularly applicable to the EU's approach. You'll have to try again.