"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Complete and utter non-story. The final paragraph goes against pretty much the rest of the story, had the UK decided to refuse it then why would the response be "negotiations are ongoing"? Virtually the whole story seems to have been written and fed to a BBC journalist from an "EU source". I have little doubt an appropriate arrangement will be negotiated when the talks are concluded.
Though what kind of BS is it to call the UK a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty? In case you've been asleep the last few years the Lisbon Treaty was vociferously objected to by most of the UK population, the current government opposed its passing - and the UK has formally ceased to be a signatory. Complete idiocy to bring that up.
According to someone I know and respect, legally the UK government may not have the authority to grant full diplomatic status to the EU since the Act of Parliament covering diplomatic status is the 1964 Diplomatic Privileges Act which only permits full diplomatic status to be granted to states and not organisations and the EU is not a state. It could require an Act of Parliament to change that.
Had this been negotiated by the EU in either the Withdrawal Agreement or the Trade Agreement then since those have gone through Parliament, this could have been slipped into that quite easily enough, but it wasn't. Seems a strange omission from the EU not to have requested that during the negotiations.
Now negotiations are ongoing and I'm sure something acceptable will be negotiated and if it needs to go through Parliament then I'm sure that will be done in due course. Was rather odd to forget to include this in the original negotiations but then that happens - both sides will no doubt have teething issues and I'm sure both sides teething issues can be addressed in due course in new negotiations.
The final paragraph doesn't contradict the rest of the article. The paragraph quotes a spokesperson as saying that "discussions are ongoing". You can tell it's a quote from the use of quotation marks and the attribution to a spokesperson. Discussions—or a row, as it were—can go on even if one party obstinately refuses to concede a key point. The statement from the spokesperson is a long-winded way of saying "no comment", and "no comment" is not a refutation.
Or maybe the BBC, unlike you, can read:Virtually the whole story seems to have been written and fed to a BBC journalist from an "EU source".
In his letter to Mr Raab last November, seen by the BBC, Mr Borrell says: "Your service have sent us a draft proposal for an establishment agreement about which we have serious concerns.
"The arrangements offered do not reflect the specific character of the EU, nor do they respond to the future relationship between the EU and the UK as an important third country.
"It would not grant the customary privileges and immunities for the delegation and its staff. The proposals do not constitute a reasonable basis for reaching an agreement."First of all, the UK did in fact sign the Lisbon Treaty. Secondly, the current govt. did not exist at the time. Thirdly, the passage quoted is not from the Lisbon Treaty, but from a later, separate decision—that the UK supported. The article mentions the Lisbon Treaty as a way to contextualize that separate decision.Though what kind of BS is it to call the UK a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty? In case you've been asleep the last few years the Lisbon Treaty was vociferously objected to by most of the UK population, the current government opposed its passing - and the UK has formally ceased to be a signatory. Complete idiocy to bring that up.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The UK has no need to concede on this point. If the EU wanted the UK to concede on this point then there have been two negotiations and agreements signed, ratified and taken through Parliament between the UK and the EU in just over a year. If the EU having diplomatic status (given it is long-standing British opinion that it should not) was so important then the EU could have requested this formally during the EU-UK negotiations in 2019 or 2020.
The EU-UK agreement recently ratified was signed after Raab's letter.
It seems you are the one incapable of reading, as is the "European Commission spokesman", the UK is not a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty: A European Commission spokesman said: "The UK, as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, is well aware of the EU's status in external relations, and was cognisant and supportive of this status while it was a member of the EU.
The UK is not a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. The UK has left the EU and we have spent five years negotiating future status.
If Rand's comments in this thread have taught me anything, its how hilariously true this video is
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Do you... do you believe people being aware of things is a function of their continued participation in international treaties, such that awareness ceases when said treaties are disapplied? is that how your brain works?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No. The UK does not recognise the EU as a sovereign state but as a multinational organisation and has offered to treat it's delegates appropriately. As is standard under the law. Just the same as NATO etc are treated.
If the EU wishes to be treated differently to other multinational institutions then it can negotiate an exemption to be taken through Parliament. It hasn't done so yet. Obviously wasn't a priority for Barnier - he was aware of this at the time and didn't deal with it.
If he'd negotiated as part of the agreement that the UK would give the EU full diplomatic status and included that in page 1188 of the agreement then would anyone have noticed? Or cared? But he didn't.
I didn't follow this discussion, but stating that the UK should be aware of something in a treaty that they signed themselves seems a reasonable argument (even if the UK left, I think it's reasonable to say they should know the content of a treaty they were a signatory to until very recently).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You'll find that most states treat NATO delegations and EU missions differently, for the obvious reason that the EU is very different from NATO. Therefore, though the convention on diolomatic relations does not apply, these missions are granted equivalent status as that of state missions. The sovereignty of the EU can hardly be discounted by someone who has spent decades wailing about how the EU had taken his country's sovereignty away, esp. in light of the EU's common currency as well as common trade- & foreign policies.
This is a separate negotiation, so that argument is not very compelling.If the EU wishes to be treated differently to other multinational institutions then it can negotiate an exemption to be taken through Parliament. It hasn't done so yet. Obviously wasn't a priority for Barnier - he was aware of this at the time and didn't deal with it.
If he'd negotiated as part of the agreement that the UK would give the EU full diplomatic status and included that in page 1188 of the agreement then would anyone have noticed? Or cared? But he didn't.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"Positive Brexit deal" - Nissan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55757930
Excellent news. Let's hope Brexit enables Nissan to realise some tangible benefits and improvements to their busines and our economy.
Way too early to say yet, but it's good that they don't intend to leave or downsize. Although, playing devil's advocate, that's hardly a win.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It was literally the headline when I posted the link, the headline has subsequently been changed.
In the text it quotes Nissan's COO saying "The Brexit deal is positive for Nissan" and talking about investing in batteries in the UK as a result of the deal.
The benefits of Brexit of course primarily are not trade-related they are sovereignty related. So even if trade-wise Brexit was entirely neutral - but without spending a net billion pounds a month on membership fee, without any sovereignty issues from membership etc - then that would be a humongous success. Economically worth a billion pounds a month immediately. If with our new trade rights we can improve trade (ie with the 93% of humanity in the rest of the world) then that will be really having cake and eating it too.
It's only a humongous success if it improves the lives of UK citizens. Let's remember that.
I expect my life and standard of living to get better.
Some new rights, cheaper and wider selection of food, better healthcare and less crime are all reasonable expectations.
You already have new rights so tick there.
New deals are being lined up across the globe.
A billion pounds a month for the NHS or judicial system or whatever will help, but how noticeable it is will be another question since the NHS is a huge money pit and people just (rightly) raise their expectations.
Noticing the improvement in the NHS should be easy. I'm sure there are lots of metrics on which success is measured. Waiting times, staff numbers and retention, medicine cost, life expectancy, procedure success, cleanliness, cost to serve are all things I imagine are already recorded.
The single most important one of all - the ability to vote for MPs that set your laws. The ability to eject MPs that set laws you dislike and get them reversed as a result. Having your MPs have no hiding place able to get away with blaming "Europe" as why what you want can't be done, or why what you don't want has to be done.
Democracy is the most important right of all.
The single most important one of all - the ability to vote for MPs that set your laws. The ability to eject MPs that set laws you dislike and get them reversed as a result. Having your MPs have no hiding place able to get away with blaming "Europe" as why what you want can't be done, or why what you don't want has to be done.
Democracy is the most important right of all.
As for the NHS it will be hard to get people to agree. Life expectancy is higher now than it was in 2010 yet some people bizarrely claim that under the Tories the NHS has been underfunded and don't recognise it as going up.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-eu-ambassador
Sums it up well.
A drop in the ocean compared to what has already left and is continuing to leave the UK, with no passporting nor other financial services guarantees nor provision in the Brexit deal; banks continue to move out of London, following America's largest. 10 or 20 billion pounds a year is pittance. Come back to us with numbers in the trillions in increased trade to make up for FS-loss then we might see a net economic break-even.
Indeed, this is fairly universally acknowledged on both sides of the debate. Brexit was not about the economy.
So meaningless 'sovereignty' tat counts for more in the minds of the majority of the British public who voted for Brexit than their own economic well-being. Though I doubt the complexities of the huge downward economic fallout from Brexit was realistically considered by many who voted. And now the UK is where it is, a steadily poorer and poorer nation over the next 10-20 years, with a shrinking treasury, shrinking salaries, increasing poverty, struggling public services, people less able to afford a roof over their heads nor food on their table.
But that's ok. Sovereignty or something.
Hey, remember we never had sovereignty before. Neither were we free of independent.
You can't put a price on that.
Didn't Nissan's profits plummet ~99% last year (or was it 19)? Aren't they still rolling out layoffs? Seems to be grasping at straws for anything, like if the US celebrated Mitsubishi doing anything state side.
Guess anything will have to do to overlook the fact your average consumer is straight boned by "the fine print of brexit".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1791148.html
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-22-2021 at 11:57 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could vote for MEP as well. And your country was represented by your PM and cabinet as well, which you do elect. QSure, the British MEPs may be overruled by others, but that's also the case for your local MP right?
Though I do think there's a lot of room for improvement in transparency on how the EU operates, and how it is reported. But that your own MPs are 'hiding' by blaming the EU is, frankly, a problem of your MPs that you elect yourself.
Anyway, this is what you guys wanted, so good luck.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!