• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leaked documents show UK/May government in denial.

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
14,235
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Theresa May's Brexit meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker 'deeply worrying', Labour says | The Independent

[FONT=&quot]According to the [/FONT]Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper's report, EU officials and Mr Juncker were surprised Ms May did not appear to be fully briefed for the meeting last week, claiming she had unrealistic expectations.

Either it is a delaying tactic from May or she is as incompetent.

The following opinion piece sums it up pretty well

Leaked details from May's disastrous dinner with Juncker suggest Brexit could be far worse than anyone imagines | The Independent

[FONT=&quot]In one major EU capital, the chief Foreign Ministry Brexit negotiator told me: “We know the UK ambassador sends accurate reports of our Brexit policy to London but does anyone read them?”[/FONT]

The position of the EU has been clear from before Brexit, and suddenly the Brits are shocked and so on? Come on..
 
Theresa May's Brexit meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker 'deeply worrying', Labour says | The Independent



Either it is a delaying tactic from May or she is as incompetent.

The following opinion piece sums it up pretty well

Leaked details from May's disastrous dinner with Juncker suggest Brexit could be far worse than anyone imagines | The Independent

The position of the EU has been clear from before Brexit, and suddenly the Brits are shocked and so on? Come on..

It becomes clear how ill conceived the Eu is, when one contemplates the 2 years negotiations period for exit and the amount of time trade talks like those with Canada take. The dishonesty of the Eu must become obvious, when one considers the statements of how one wants to do well for everyone, while at the same time telling one's own population that the Brits must be worse off after exit. But malevolently wanting to do Eu citizens, which the Brits are, harm by making them worse off to dissuade others from leaving too is a declaration of political bankruptcy at the level of the Soviet that also required coercion to keep its satellites in orbit. I do not agree with many positions of her party, but pointing this out in the Bundestag the other day was juste à point.
 
It becomes clear how ill conceived the Eu is, when one contemplates the 2 years negotiations period for exit and the amount of time trade talks like those with Canada take. The dishonesty of the Eu must become obvious, when one considers the statements of how one wants to do well for everyone, while at the same time telling one's own population that the Brits must be worse off after exit. But malevolently wanting to do Eu citizens, which the Brits are, harm by making them worse off to dissuade others from leaving too is a declaration of political bankruptcy at the level of the Soviet that also required coercion to keep its satellites in orbit. I do not agree with many positions of her party, but pointing this out in the Bundestag the other day was juste à point.

Why should the British get to keep any of the perks of the EU without being in it? If you leave you lose the privileges and you have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That is like refusing to pay for university but still expect to go to class and graduate while never having to write an exam. Exit talks are not trade talks.
 
The British think they can get away with keeping all the things they like for free, that is flat out delusional.
 
Theresa May's Brexit meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker 'deeply worrying', Labour says | The Independent



Either it is a delaying tactic from May or she is as incompetent.

The following opinion piece sums it up pretty well

Leaked details from May's disastrous dinner with Juncker suggest Brexit could be far worse than anyone imagines | The Independent



The position of the EU has been clear from before Brexit, and suddenly the Brits are shocked and so on? Come on..
It looks like the cognitive dissonance extends well beyond.

Fortunately opinions of certain posters don't carry much weight in the overall picture.

If they did (considering those leaving to be EU citizens "still" and forever, and making comparisons to the Soviets) that would represent only the tip of the iceberg catastrophe of incapacity to see reality. Or, maybe, unwillingness to engage upon sensible appraisal.

Some stuff one simply can't make up. :lol:

That Merkel subsequently saw fit to point out the gross delusions that are not only held in amazing denial of reality but are also fed to the British public, can hardly come as a surprise.

Just as it should be no surprise that she was far from speaking solely for herself or Germany respectively.

If we're going to address dishonesty here, it would do some people good to understand where the accusation needs to be directed.
 
Last edited:
The British think they can get away with keeping all the things they like for free, that is flat out delusional.
I dunno about the British in general but a sizeable portion is obviously enjoying being lied to by "Theresa the Savior", who shows to be as dishonest as every other one of the domestic mugshots, past and present.

The snap elections recently called are not so much about having a strong negotiation position in Brussels as they are of already having had them done by the time the truth is out in 2019. That development would otherwise have severely cluttered up May's chances in those elections normally scheduled for 2020.

Which now won't happen.

It's the season of the liars and it's predominantly West of the Channel.
 
And I will remind you again, no matter how bad or costly Brexit will be - there are plenty happy to pay the price for their own ends or for their own vision of what Britain will be.
.........all of it augmented by May having meanwhile expressed that she'd rather have a no-deal than a bad one.

Apart from the semantic callisthenics this demonstrates (what's worse (as in more bad) than a no-deal or how is it better and better than what?), it sounds like a premature victory declaration.

"If they don't do what we want, screw 'em and we'll have won".

Amazingly people buy into this stuff.
 
Why should the British get to keep any of the perks of the EU without being in it? If you leave you lose the privileges and you have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That is like refusing to pay for university but still expect to go to class and graduate while never having to write an exam. Exit talks are not trade talks.

In many Eu countries people's minds are formed by not having to pay for university. ;)

But in all seriousness, of which "perks" do you speak? There are none of much value that are not mutual and that losing will do citizens in the remaining Eu as much harm as they will the Brits. Free trade helps both sides and increasing tariffs will harm the Eu.
 
~ Amazingly people buy into this stuff.

I see a few categories of Brexiteers

1) Those who really believe Europe is holding the UK back or that the EU as an economic entity now contributes a much smaller percentage of the World economy. (17% now as opposed to 45% of all economic activity when we first joined.)

2) Freedom from bureaucracy in Belgium at any cost. The "I'd rather be free and poor than have decisions made elsewhere" or the "gilded cage" analogy.

3) Hard Brexit will cause financial chaos and problems. Like extremists everywhere, chaos opens the path to opportunity. Jihadis attack the French political process knowing it will cause moderate muslims problems; similarly, when economic conditions deteriorate, people tend to look for scapegoats because the political situation will improve when people blame minorities for economic woes.

4) The independently minded - like the young teenager leaving the security of home, things will be hard and uncertainty much greater but at least we will be making our own decisions.

The ones I tend to run into on the BBC "Have your Say" discussion pages tend to be from category 3, some eventually confessing they vote BNP / UKIP etc for these people, no cost is too much. An economic downturn will (in their eyes) make immigrants less likely to come or even those they still see as immigrants despite being 2nd / 3rd or 4th generation would leave.
 
I see a few categories of Brexiteers

1) Those who really believe Europe is holding the UK back or that the EU as an economic entity now contributes a much smaller percentage of the World economy. (17% now as opposed to 45% of all economic activity when we first joined.)

2) Freedom from bureaucracy in Belgium at any cost. The "I'd rather be free and poor than have decisions made elsewhere" or the "gilded cage" analogy.

3) Hard Brexit will cause financial chaos and problems. Like extremists everywhere, chaos opens the path to opportunity. Jihadis attack the French political process knowing it will cause moderate muslims problems; similarly, when economic conditions deteriorate, people tend to look for scapegoats because the political situation will improve when people blame minorities for economic woes.

4) The independently minded - like the young teenager leaving the security of home, things will be hard and uncertainty much greater but at least we will be making our own decisions.

The ones I tend to run into on the BBC "Have your Say" discussion pages tend to be from category 3, some eventually confessing they vote BNP / UKIP etc for these people, no cost is too much. An economic downturn will (in their eyes) make immigrants less likely to come or even those they still see as immigrants despite being 2nd / 3rd or 4th generation would leave.

Interesting breakdown.:thumbs:

On the principle of "each to his/her own" I'll not argue any of the positions, yet I could probably muster the most understanding for number 4).
 
In many Eu countries people's minds are formed by not having to pay for university. ;)

But in all seriousness, of which "perks" do you speak? There are none of much value that are not mutual and that losing will do citizens in the remaining Eu as much harm as they will the Brits. Free trade helps both sides and increasing tariffs will harm the Eu.

What The EU is in the position of power here, the EU market will not be negatively by the UK leaving but the UK economy will. They want access to the EU market without paying anything, even refusing to pay their current fees. They appear to want the same economic access to Europe and the same privileges for its citizens as they have as part of the EU, all without following the EU's rules or paying for the access. Essentially they want to stay part of the EU without having to abide by the policies the UK does not like and not contribute in anyway.
 
~ I could probably muster the most understanding for number 4).

Yeah, me too. My personal position is yes we're leaving and things will be hard here but we have to make something of this situation. I just hope the economics don't drive the chaos and friction I suspect will happen if it all falls apart.
 
I see a few categories of Brexiteers

1) Those who really believe Europe is holding the UK back or that the EU as an economic entity now contributes a much smaller percentage of the World economy. (17% now as opposed to 45% of all economic activity when we first joined.)

2) Freedom from bureaucracy in Belgium at any cost. The "I'd rather be free and poor than have decisions made elsewhere" or the "gilded cage" analogy.

3) Hard Brexit will cause financial chaos and problems. Like extremists everywhere, chaos opens the path to opportunity. Jihadis attack the French political process knowing it will cause moderate muslims problems; similarly, when economic conditions deteriorate, people tend to look for scapegoats because the political situation will improve when people blame minorities for economic woes.

4) The independently minded - like the young teenager leaving the security of home, things will be hard and uncertainty much greater but at least we will be making our own decisions.

The ones I tend to run into on the BBC "Have your Say" discussion pages tend to be from category 3, some eventually confessing they vote BNP / UKIP etc for these people, no cost is too much. An economic downturn will (in their eyes) make immigrants less likely to come or even those they still see as immigrants despite being 2nd / 3rd or 4th generation would leave.

This is an interesting breakdown. I would also add yet another category: those who thought that when the EU was requiring that they accept immigrants, it meant Syrian refugees and other Muslims. It turns out, however, that the overwhelming majority of the new immigrants were from other EU countries: Poles, Czechs, etc.... Part of being in a free trade zone/economic block means that there is free flow of labor across borders. Agreeing to take Syrian refugees was something their own government had decided to do. And interestingly, Brexit will not really change that.

Oh well. The ignorant are running the world now. The inmates are running the asylum. Funny enough, as you may know, the most Googled question in the UK after the Brexit vote was:

What is the EU?:shock:
 
~ Part of being in a free trade zone/economic block means that there is free flow of labor across borders. ~

On this alone, I think most EU govt have handled this badly and it has simply ended up with resentment for those hard working migrants who do travel. Most of them are in work and pay taxes, those taxes should contribute to the local economy and pay towards increased services when those migrants need healthcare or school for their kids.

Very few governments actually used that increase in funds for that purpose and what happens is that locals feel migrants are taking up rare resources which simply leads to resentment. This was another of the reasons behind the Brexit vote and could have been handled so much better and earlier.
 
It turns out, however, that the overwhelming majority of the new immigrants were from other EU countries: Poles, Czechs, etc.... Part of being in a free trade zone/economic block means that there is free flow of labor across borders.

False.. For the most part for the last few decades, non-EU migration to the US has been the majority of new immigrants. This is mostly from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, China and so on. There was a quarter just before the referendum where EU migration sneaked past non-EU migration but for the most part it has been more non-EU migration that is in the majority.

And non-EU migration is under FULL control of the UK government.
 
What The EU is in the position of power here, the EU market will not be negatively by the UK leaving but the UK economy will. They want access to the EU market without paying anything, even refusing to pay their current fees. They appear to want the same economic access to Europe and the same privileges for its citizens as they have as part of the EU, all without following the EU's rules or paying for the access. Essentially they want to stay part of the EU without having to abide by the policies the UK does not like and not contribute in anyway.

Of course the EU ie citizens will be affected by the exit. This is always the case, when you discontinue free trade. And as the UK is a large member, the effect for some EU citizens will be harsh. It is not a privilege in the normal sense of that word to enjoin in free trade, as it always benefits both parties. That is not well understood in the populations, sorrily, but it is economics 101.

As to free migration I am not sure that that is a real problem. I didn't have any problems in the UK as an American, anyway. So why the EU citizens are in a tizzy is rather odd. If you have a non selfish reason to be there, I do not foresee problems in the future. It is somewhat different in the other direction. Brits are citizens of the EU. That the EU is shoving them overboard, though, 48 percent dir not want to leave and many do not want to give up their citizenship is rather barbaric. The citizenship is between the individual and the state and not a matter of EU vs UK governments. Showng the populations of Europe that people are not treated as individuals but as government chattel is quite arrogant and will almost certainly come back to bite the EU elite.

As to the bill the EU is sending the UK, it is debatable. The EU membership contract is very vague about the exit process and does not give much surety on the point of the amount the EU should pay the exiting member nor vice versa. Apriori I have seen no solidity in the EU claims, but maybe you can show the basis for payments for exit.
 
On this alone, I think most EU govt have handled this badly and it has simply ended up with resentment for those hard working migrants who do travel. Most of them are in work and pay taxes, those taxes should contribute to the local economy and pay towards increased services when those migrants need healthcare or school for their kids.

Very few governments actually used that increase in funds for that purpose and what happens is that locals feel migrants are taking up rare resources which simply leads to resentment. This was another of the reasons behind the Brexit vote and could have been handled so much better and earlier.

The problem is positive vs negative news/politics. It is so much easier to use negative talking during a political campaign, aka be against something, than being positive and telling the facts. A good example is the recent Brexit referendum, where lie after lie by the Brexit camp was never effectively countered because it is so much harder to disprove a lie/negative thing or promote actual facts. Of course both sides use this, which also does not help the situation.

Now in the case of the UK, the press has been mostly negative towards the EU, immigrants and so on, because it sells to be negative. Now the EU have attempted to counter this negative campaign but it is hard to break through when the only way to counter it, is to go through the very same media. And of course the Conservative (nor the Labour) governments never helped the situation because the negativity also aided some of their pet politic peeves.

For example, on the immigration front. Why dont the government and pro-EU forces publish and promote the rules that are available? That as an immigrant you need to either have private health insurance or be covered by a job or from "back home". That as an immigrant you need to have a job or have XXXX amount in a bank account in country and be self supporting. Why has this never been pushed on the British public? Because it would mean that the government (this one and the last labour one) would be caught in the fact that, the rules are there but they are rarely fully enforced. So the anti-immigrant side basically have the whole debate to themselves, despite a very important fact being that immigrants contribute considerably more to society in taxes than they take out and are basically subsidising natural born Brits... another fact that rarely comes up in the debate. Much easier to blame immigrants for everything.... the politics of negativity and no facts.
 
Of course the EU ie citizens will be affected by the exit. This is always the case, when you discontinue free trade. And as the UK is a large member, the effect for some EU citizens will be harsh. It is not a privilege in the normal sense of that word to enjoin in free trade, as it always benefits both parties. That is not well understood in the populations, sorrily, but it is economics 101.

As to free migration I am not sure that that is a real problem. I didn't have any problems in the UK as an American, anyway. So why the EU citizens are in a tizzy is rather odd. If you have a non selfish reason to be there, I do not foresee problems in the future. It is somewhat different in the other direction. Brits are citizens of the EU. That the EU is shoving them overboard, though, 48 percent dir not want to leave and many do not want to give up their citizenship is rather barbaric. The citizenship is between the individual and the state and not a matter of EU vs UK governments. Showng the populations of Europe that people are not treated as individuals but as government chattel is quite arrogant and will almost certainly come back to bite the EU elite.

As to the bill the EU is sending the UK, it is debatable. The EU membership contract is very vague about the exit process and does not give much surety on the point of the amount the EU should pay the exiting member nor vice versa. Apriori I have seen no solidity in the EU claims, but maybe you can show the basis for payments for exit.

It is for membership dues owed because they are still part of the EU while they negotiate and is the money the UK previously pledged, they have a contract. The EU economy is many times larger than that of the UK, the UK relies a lot more on the EU than the EU relies on the UK. Especially once companies start leaving the UK because the UK will not get passporting. The problem here is suddenly a bunch of EU citizens no longer have a right to live and work in the UK and the opposite is also true, but is ultimately up to the individual countries what happens. The UK voted to leave, they are going to be punished.
 
It is for membership dues owed because they are still part of the EU while they negotiate and is the money the UK previously pledged, they have a contract. The EU economy is many times larger than that of the UK, the UK relies a lot more on the EU than the EU relies on the UK. Especially once companies start leaving the UK because the UK will not get passporting. The problem here is suddenly a bunch of EU citizens no longer have a right to live and work in the UK and the opposite is also true, but is ultimately up to the individual countries what happens. The UK voted to leave, they are going to be punished.

Yiu should be more precise. What you say in not convincing legally nor factually. Just as one point take a look at the Libon Treaty and show us, where you find reference to membership dues and how they should be treated on a country exiting.

As far as relative sizes are concerned, you should possibly rely less on the pooulist news coverage on the continent and think about what it means to lose 17 percent of your poduction. That will be much worse for many companies that live mostly from trade with the uk and will almost certainly lead to quute a few bankruptcies. But never fear, the EU grandees will point their fingers at GB.
 
The problem is positive vs negative news/politics. It is so much easier to use negative talking during a political campaign, aka be against something, than being positive and telling the facts. A good example is the recent Brexit referendum, where lie after lie by the Brexit camp was never effectively countered because it is so much harder to disprove a lie/negative thing or promote actual facts. Of course both sides use this, which also does not help the situation.

Now in the case of the UK, the press has been mostly negative towards the EU, immigrants and so on, because it sells to be negative. Now the EU have attempted to counter this negative campaign but it is hard to break through when the only way to counter it, is to go through the very same media. And of course the Conservative (nor the Labour) governments never helped the situation because the negativity also aided some of their pet politic peeves.

For example, on the immigration front. Why dont the government and pro-EU forces publish and promote the rules that are available? That as an immigrant you need to either have private health insurance or be covered by a job or from "back home". That as an immigrant you need to have a job or have XXXX amount in a bank account in country and be self supporting. Why has this never been pushed on the British public? Because it would mean that the government (this one and the last labour one) would be caught in the fact that, the rules are there but they are rarely fully enforced. So the anti-immigrant side basically have the whole debate to themselves, despite a very important fact being that immigrants contribute considerably more to society in taxes than they take out and are basically subsidising natural born Brits... another fact that rarely comes up in the debate. Much easier to blame immigrants for everything.... the politics of negativity and no facts.

Sadly, the main purpose of getting into power is to hang onto that power, not actually do much good with it. I don't care which party or politics anyone supports, there are very few who seek power to actually do good with it and then walk away.


(Cue "Gladiator" music right here...)
 
Back
Top Bottom