kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
flatty wrote: » I can't believe you are quoting The Sun as gospel. Sweet Lord. Its some kind of modern day godwinism
First Up wrote: » The EU is not a debating society and Brexit is not about proving who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it anyone's intention or in anyone's interest that the UK is impoverished. The EU is a voluntary arrangement and its only focus (and responsibility) is the interests of its members. The UK has chosen to forfeit the benefits of membership, in exchange for a marginal increase in autonomy (in a world in which autonomy is becoming ever less useful.) But that's its entitlement and it is not the EU's problem where it goes from here. There is nobody in the EU that I talk to (and I talk to a lot) who talks about punishing the UK. They do however talk a lot about how the EU best uses the situation to the benefit of the 27 member states.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Indeed, which is why not inflicting self-harm would be important. An example of what I'm talking about is the Gallileo row. The EU naturally intends to kick the UK out and is refusing to refund funds that Britain contributed. Nothing personal, just business. As a prime example of how many in Britain view the EU, here is The Sun's comment on the matter: "THE EU’s repugnant arrogance in excluding us from the Galileo security satellite should open even Remainers’ eyes. Brussels is prepared to endanger millions to teach Brexit Britain a lesson.Last year there was outrage at the merest hint of us using our security strength as a bargaining chip, even as the Government ruled it out.German-backed EU bureaucrats are doing far worse.So be it. We are Europe’s main security power. They have much to lose.Theresa May is demanding back the £1billion we put into this system.But that is chicken feed next to our £39billion divorce bill. She must insist not a penny is paid until we are reinstated in Galileo and a trade deal is signed.We were naive to imagine Brussels would be a friendly partner after Brexit.Its powerful bureaucrats are now nakedly and dangerously hostile."
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am not "forgetting" that. It is entirely irrelevant. The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible. The EU very much has an interest in stopping them but they can't prevent Brexit. The EU should ensure that when they leave they are worse off than when they were in the EU. Which will happen naturally under the terms of the current deal or a hard Brexit. It is in the EU's interest to ensure that the UK doesn't have its cake and eat it.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am not "forgetting" that. It is entirely irrelevant. The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » ..................The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » You seem to be forgetting that the UK has shown no such consideration to us at any point.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am not willfully misunderstanding you, you are saying two contradictory things: we should "wound" the UK, and we should not do anything that harms ourselves. "Wounding" or "punishing" the UK will harm us so we should not do it.
Anthracite wrote: » But they know that by not facilitating NI staying in the single market, they will be forcing the ROI to put one there? There is no virtue or honour in that position. I'd also be curious to see how long such a resolution would last when the WTO comes knocking and asks why the UK it isn't regulating its borders.
Folkstonian wrote: » Well, the government have stated that they will not put a hard border in place under any circumstances, for one thing.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I'm not suggesting that the EU goes to war with the UK or that they punish Britain unnecessarily. Nor would I suggest destabilising the country. All of those actions would be self-defeating. Brexit should be seen by the EU as the existential threat that it is and also as an opportunity to hamstring a competitor wherever it is in their interest.
Tell me how wrote: » Virtually nonexistent threat at this point I suspect given that all major parties support upholding the democratic vote of the referendum. But, there may be some fringe activists such as Tommy Robinson and his ilk who try to instigate some form of anarchy. But, while there might be a non-existent threat at this point, the impact of Brexit on UK society has the potential to promote a much more agitated and divisive society. (As an aside, if you asked me to predict whether the US or UK is closer to civil war, I'd go with the former given the influence of gun culture and the NRA to manipulate.)
Folkstonian wrote: » Nobody is misinterpreting you. The adversarial nature of your language has gone far beyond anything I’ve seen from even the most ardent hard-Brexit supporting columnists/ commentators in the british press, which is really going some. One minute you are saying that the EU need to cut Britain adrift regardless of a change in public opinion in the U.K., only to change your mind the same evening and state that a cancellation of Brexit is in everyone’s best interest. You are a regular contributor here but I have literally no idea what you actually think.
steddyeddy wrote: » Of course we should take advantage of the UK if it doesn't harm us. I mean how much care have they shown towards Ireland and the peace process in Northern Ireland?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Sure. At this stage I'm wondering if you are wilfully misunderstanding me. In the post you just quoted and in my earlier reply to you, I've made it abundantly clear that we should take advantage of the UK as long it doesn't harm us. I already gave an example - the Gallileo project.
murphaph wrote: » Brexit is lose-lose. The EU will just have to make do without GCHQ. The question however is given the economic damage Brexit will do to the UK economy, how effective can GCHQ remain in the future? This stuff costs money made in the real economy.
RobMc59 wrote: » If you're referring to retaining money the UK has paid into the Galileo project that's all well and good but are you sure the EU can take up the slack if they exclude the UK from sensitive security matters thus loosing the services of GCHQ and the UK expertise in that field?
RobMc59 wrote: » The EU flexing it's muscles will affect Ireland most in this scenario-cyber security and indeed defence which is currently provided by the UK in the mutual interest of both countries.
RobMc59 wrote: » Would it be a reasonable assumption that your brexit wishlist would be:1-the TM deal to go through.2-no deal brexit. 3-UK remain. I ask this as UK remaining would be a blow to Ireland's ambitions in regards to picking up services and manufacturing in your opinion.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » That's the calculated risk. Personally, I think it's the EU flexing it's muscles and giving an example of what is to come.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It fascinates me that some people are upset over the word 'wound'. What else would you try to do to a competitor (without harming yourself obviously) ? When it comes to business, there is no sentiment.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I'm re-watching the West Wing and they refer to dumping the bad news stories that aren't a big deal as dumping the garbage. This is what happening here. Remember when losing access to the Galileo project either wouldn't happen or would be such a outrage the it would be an international incident. Well now they are adopting the bender (of Futurama fame) attitude we'll build our own satellites and rockets with black jack and hookers
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Sure. At this stage I'm wondering if you are wilfully misunderstanding me. In the post you just quoted and in my earlier reply to you, I've made it abundantly clear that we should take advantage of the UK as long it doesn't harm us.
