Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Options
1…260261263265266…318

Comments

  • Options
    #7862
    reslfj
    Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭reslfj


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    .I'd say ... that would mean they've deceived the UK

    he EU27, its members, experts, people within trade, from finance, and production have from long before the referendum and to this day told the UK, the UK voters and everyone that cared to listen:

    "Leaving the EU is an extremely bad idea"

    We have always told the UK and its people that they would not get any say and that the UK will end up in a clearly worse situation outside the EU, its SM/CU and numerous other areas where the EU is the framework for European cooperation.

    The UK decided to activate A50 and a sovereign country must 'itself' act like wise adults and understand the consequences of such a (stupid) step.

    Lars :)


  • Options
    #7863
    eire4
    Registered Users Posts: 6,637 ✭✭✭eire4


    Reality is the UK put themselves in the very bad position they are in by leaving the EU. The EU did not want them to leave but they did and the EU has made it clear all along there will be consequences for that decision. That is basic reality and one that is going to become very clear as December 31st comes around.


  • Options
    #7864
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Except for this bit:

    If your plan is no deal, then you don't have to find a solution to withdrawal payments; you can just decline to make them.

    They would have to find a solution to it, because the alternative would be an act of default. The UK House of Lords report that Jacob Rees Mogg waves about saying that they have no obligation to pay is nothing more than an argument that they might not have to pay, and that even if they do, they could tie it up in dispute resolution for years e.g. is the budget part of EU law (in which case under Art 50 there is no obligation), or is the Multi Annual Financial Framework a separate international treaty (in which case, it is covered by the Vienna Convention).

    Leaving that aside, the EU could impose sanctions under WTO rules. Also, other countries would see it as a default or at least be unwilling to enter Trade Deals with the UK. Also, the EU could refuse to pay any monies due to the UK (although, bizzarely, the WA as negotiated by Boris renounced the UK's claim to several billion euro in the European Investment Bank).

    Basically, while they legally could refuse to pay anything, the repercussions would be so severe, that they would, in real terms, have to come to some arrangement. If they have to come to some arrangement, better now than after a messy dispute process, which could theoretically have the bill at a higher amount.
    In signing the withdrawal agreement, the UK has accepted a binding treaty obligation to make payments to the EU over the next few years of something like GBP 30 billion. (More, if sterling continues to fall, which is likely if there i a no-deal exit from transition.) People might reasonably ask what the UK has secured for this? Deferral of a no-deal situation for 11 months? That seems like poor value for money. Expect Johnson's critics, both within and without the Tory party, to point this out.

    It was a mistake or possibly a lie by the Brexiteers to suggest that the divorce settlement funds were meant in any way to entire a further deal or even to pay for the transition period. The EU and UK agreed that the terms of the UK's exit would be resolved first, which involved coming to an agreement on the payment of outstanding funds (both ways, though in reality the vast majority was going from the UK to the EU), the settlement of Northern Ireland and an agreement on the Status of EU/UK nationals who had already exercised free movement rights.

    The EU made it clear that the UK had to deal with those three issues before leaving. Otherwise, the UK would be seen as a pariah state.

    So they secured the withdrawal agreement so that their credit ratings and credibility as a nation would not be utterly destroyed.

    The transition period is a mutually beneficial situation to minimise disruption and to allow the parties some time to negotiate a deal. But it was not bought for by the Withdrawal Agreement. If the UK enters an agreement for future trading with the EU, that will incur an ongoing expense for the UK, whether it is the relatively modest costs of overseeing a Free Trade Area, the more involved costs of being part of the EEA (which involves direct payments to the less developed EU nations and neighbourhood countries) or a larger payment for access to many of the EU's institutions. Again, none of those things have been bought or secured by the payments under the Withdrawal Agreement - those are payments of monies due.


  • Options
    #7865
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I'm in favour of very close ties with the EU Lars but perhaps diplomacy isn't your strong point.If Michael Barnier and his team used terms like 'rule taker' etc negotiations probably wouldn't last very long ,those tactics would be counterproductive.

    The UK is now bound by the WTO's most favoured nation rule. That means that the UK is unable to unilaterally set preferential trading terms for one country over another outside of a comprehensive free trade deal.

    In that regard, the UK is a rule taker from the WTO. The WTO insists that the UK sign up to that, or else they will kick them out. If the UK really doesn't want to be a "rule taker", then it should leave the WTO.

    Likewise, the UN requires the UK to observe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention on Refugees. This means that the UN is forcing the UK to have human rights, something the Conservative government is seemingly opposed to . And of course the Refugee Convention requires the UK to accept applications for asylum. They are rule takers in both of these areas, and if they don't take those rules, they will have to leave the UN.

    Unless, of course, the whole "rule taker" rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I'm not saying anything about what the UK has or hasn't got but if what you're saying is true,the EU isn't actually 'negotiating'and is being disingenuous if the script is 'you have nothing and WILL do as you're told,you're a rule taker'...etc..Do you consider that conducting themselves and negotiating honourably?

    He didn't say that the UK would get "nothing", he said that the UK would get very little. If they got nothing, they wouldn't enter the deal. But the reality is that despite the rhetoric of "they need us more than we need them", and "we hold all the cards" etc from the Brexiteers, it is the EU who is in the stronger position, and much as the Brexiteers wanted to press their advantage, you can hardly blame the EU for actually pressing theirs.

    Being a rule taker is separate. Basically, you can't avoid being a "rule taker" if you are party to any international agreements. If there are rules that can't be unilaterally changed, then you are a rule taker. But, let's be clear, most adults know that by entering an agreement you have a combination of rights and duties, so going around objecting to being a "rule taker" isn't a particularly mature way of negotiating.

    As for honourable, you might want to read up on what honour means. It is perfectly honourable to negotiate the best deal possible for yourself and for your member states. The concept of honour as deferring to what the British extremists say is not a use of the term I am familiar with.
    I've said on numerous occasions I'm totally against brexit and would prefer a close relationship with the EU,probably as described as brino as I understand it.

    Yet you gleefully champion what you mistakenly believed to have been a failing in the EU just the other day. I will take you at your word that you were against Brexit and would prefer a close relationship with the EU, but it certainly seems at odds with everything else you say.
    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Yes but the UK is constantly being lambasted for being 'perfidious albion' yet you casually dismiss a high handed,arrogant approach as the norm.I'd say if that's the EU strategy that would mean they've deceived the UK which may bring any agreement into dispute imo.

    A high handed arrogant approach is to go around saying that we hold all the cards, that the EU is panicking, the EU is terrified etc etc. All the leading Brexiteers have been high handed and arrogant.

    Meanwhile, the EU leaders have, for the most part been reserved and understated. Look at any comments by Barnier, Verhofstadt, Varadkar, Rutte, Macron, Merkel etc and all are dignified and respectful. Ok, on one occasion Donald Tusk got annoyed and said there was a special place in hell for brexiteers who had no plan, and was lambasted by the UK press for it. But the undeniable weight of arrogance is on the British side.

    In fact, it's a truly remarkable thing that the pretty much everything a Brexiteer says, the opposite is true.

    To be clear, arrogance is to have an exaggerated sense of ones self. The EU is doing no more than relying on the reality that they are in a better position to negotiate trade than the UK are.

    So yes, UK = Arrogant. EU = realistic. IMO


  • Options
    #7866
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I'm not saying anything about what the UK has or hasn't got but if what you're saying is true,the EU isn't actually 'negotiating'and is being disingenuous if the script is 'you have nothing and WILL do as you're told,you're a rule taker'...etc..Do you consider that conducting themselves and negotiating honourably?I've said on numerous occasions I'm totally against brexit and would prefer a close relationship with the EU,probably as described as brino as I understand it.

    What exactly is disingenuous or dishonourable about using the leverage available to you to get the best deal possible for your side? The facts on the ground are that the EU has far more leverage than the UK and the resulting deal will be far more favourable to the EU than the UK because of this. Hammering out the terms of the trade deal, however one sided, is still a negotiation. The EU is not simply handing the UK a prepared treaty and demanding signature without discussion. A negotiation does not require that the EU has to pretend that the UK is an equal partner when reality says it is not, nor that the EU team must pretend that the advantages they have do not exist.

    Seriously, get your head out of the clouds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7867
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭fash


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    If the EU erect a border,its them doing it.The 'look what you made me do' line wouldn't be right just as the UK walking away from the EU using the same defence would be wrong.
    I refuse to believe anyone is so stupid that they could actually believe this. It is literally impossible to be this stupid - which means that such an assertion can only be made in bad faith. So the question is why are you making assertions in bad faith?
    What do you gain by making bad faith assertions?


  • Options
    #7868
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    What?
    How have they deceived the UK?
    The UK chose the position it believed would be best for the UK. Everything by the EU has been transparent.

    Not if the EU isn't really negotiating and believes the UK WILL do as its told,underhandedness isn't transparency Seth.


  • Options
    #7869
    Runaways
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Runaways


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Not if the EU isn't really negotiating and believes the UK WILL do as its told,underhandedness isn't transparency Seth.

    Underhandedness?
    What, like Britain Repeatedly sending envoys all around the EU member states trying to get them to side with them against Ireland in the negotiations?

    Yeah that worked out well didn’t it? You’re measuring others by your own scales. That usually tells it’s own tale.


  • Options
    #7870
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    The UK is now bound by the WTO's most favoured nation rule. That means that the UK is unable to unilaterally set preferential trading terms for one country over another outside of a comprehensive free trade deal.

    In that regard, the UK is a rule taker from the WTO. The WTO insists that the UK sign up to that, or else they will kick them out. If the UK really doesn't want to be a "rule taker", then it should leave the WTO.

    Likewise, the UN requires the UK to observe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention on Refugees. This means that the UN is forcing the UK to have human rights, something the Conservative government is seemingly opposed to . And of course the Refugee Convention requires the UK to accept applications for asylum. They are rule takers in both of these areas, and if they don't take those rules, they will have to leave the UN.

    Unless, of course, the whole "rule taker" rhetoric is just that - rhetoric.



    He didn't say that the UK would get "nothing", he said that the UK would get very little. If they got nothing, they wouldn't enter the deal. But the reality is that despite the rhetoric of "they need us more than we need them", and "we hold all the cards" etc from the Brexiteers, it is the EU who is in the stronger position, and much as the Brexiteers wanted to press their advantage, you can hardly blame the EU for actually pressing theirs.

    Being a rule taker is separate. Basically, you can't avoid being a "rule taker" if you are party to any international agreements. If there are rules that can't be unilaterally changed, then you are a rule taker. But, let's be clear, most adults know that by entering an agreement you have a combination of rights and duties, so going around objecting to being a "rule taker" isn't a particularly mature way of negotiating.

    As for honourable, you might want to read up on what honour means. It is perfectly honourable to negotiate the best deal possible for yourself and for your member states. The concept of honour as deferring to what the British extremists say is not a use of the term I am familiar with.



    Yet you gleefully champion what you mistakenly believed to have been a failing in the EU just the other day. I will take you at your word that you were against Brexit and would prefer a close relationship with the EU, but it certainly seems at odds with everything else you say.



    A high handed arrogant approach is to go around saying that we hold all the cards, that the EU is panicking, the EU is terrified etc etc. All the leading Brexiteers have been high handed and arrogant.

    Meanwhile, the EU leaders have, for the most part been reserved and understated. Look at any comments by Barnier, Verhofstadt, Varadkar, Rutte, Macron, Merkel etc and all are dignified and respectful. Ok, on one occasion Donald Tusk got annoyed and said there was a special place in hell for brexiteers who had no plan, and was lambasted by the UK press for it. But the undeniable weight of arrogance is on the British side.

    In fact, it's a truly remarkable thing that the pretty much everything a Brexiteer says, the opposite is true.

    To be clear, arrogance is to have an exaggerated sense of ones self. The EU is doing no more than relying on the reality that they are in a better position to negotiate trade than the UK are.

    So yes, UK = Arrogant. EU = realistic. IMO

    Perhaps I'm naive as previously suggested.There is no dispute the EU has the upper hand.I couldn't understand why many in the UK tory government (which to my consternation won by a landslide)speak of just cutting negotiations short and telling the EU to 'stick their negotiations where the sun don't shine '.You only have to watch UK TV and speak to normally 'middle of the road' folks,the amount of people who you would normally view as normal with reasonable views saying 'let's get out and leave them to it,let's take our chances elsewhere'. is shocking .
    Perhaps the UK saying they'll walk away isn't meant as a threat-its a statement of intent because obviously the UK cutting all ties wouldn't harm the EU.
    Edit:I think perhaps Peregrinus's post which you commented on may be the truth.


  • Options
    #7871
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Runaways wrote: »
    Underhandedness?
    What, like Britain Repeatedly sending envoys all around the EU member states trying to get them to side with them against Ireland in the negotiations?

    Yeah that worked out well didn’t it? You’re measuring others by your own scales. That usually tells it’s own tale.

    I thought those tactics underhand and totally disagreed with them.
    As far as Ireland is concerned,I love everything about the place with the exception of SF and their associates.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7872
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Runaways wrote: »
    Underhandedness?
    What, like Britain Repeatedly sending envoys all around the EU member states trying to get them to side with them against Ireland in the negotiations?

    Yeah that worked out well didn’t it? You’re measuring others by your own scales. That usually tells it’s own tale.

    The current UK Home Secretary suggested creating food shortages in Ireland a negotiating tactic.


  • Options
    #7873
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,967 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Not if the EU isn't really negotiating and believes the UK WILL do as its told,underhandedness isn't transparency Seth.
    Firstly coukd you please answer my question on how the EU has deceived the UK?
    In terms of the EU telling the UK that it will do as it's told, have you an example of this? Maybe you're confusing it with the EU stating that it will not allow the UK to produce to standards lower than that allowed by the EU, which is fair enough.
    Can you also provide an example of where the EU was underhanded towards the UK?


  • Options
    #7874
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    The current UK Home Secretary suggested creating food shortages in Ireland a negotiating tactic.
    The UK ferry companies are looking for subsidies to keep some routes open due to lower passenger numbers.
    The UK Chamber of Shipping warned if businesses severely cut back services, then supplies of food, medical equipment and other imported goods would be put at risk.


    Unaccompanied trailers normally account for half the ro-ro traffic on the Irish Sea so possibly not as dependent on passenger numbers here.

    https://afloat.ie/port-news

    Port operators say imports of essential items have increased


    Container Cranes from Cork Harbour Shipped to Belfast & Dublin to Keep Trade Moving

    Dredging Operations Underway at the Port of Waterford


  • Options
    #7875
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Can you also provide an example of where the EU was underhanded towards the UK?
    They've completely undermined the UK by publicly outlining the EU position in advance.

    It's very hard to claim to be winning secret negotiations when the other party has already shown the entire planet it's gameplan, timeline and the issues it will and won't compromise on.

    The European Union and the United Kingdom – forging a new partnership

    Documents related to the work of the Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom


  • Options
    #7876
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Firstly coukd you please answer my question on how the EU has deceived the UK?
    In terms of the EU telling the UK that it will do as it's told, have you an example of this? Maybe you're confusing it with the EU stating that it will not allow the UK to produce to standards lower than that allowed by the EU, which is fair enough.
    Can you also provide an example of where the EU was underhanded towards the UK?

    Perhaps I was getting over excited by reslfj`s posting style.I realise the EU as the stronger party has the upper hand in any negotiations.Insisting that the UK must adhere to EU standards if they want a deal is very reasonable imo.There are many people here in the UK who just want the government to walk away from negotiations as they see the EU as being insincere,I`ve never thought that but if their idea of negotiations is `you have no leverage so will ultimately do as your told`enpowers the anti EU brigade. Even as someone who thinks the EU is a good thing I`d rather Britain walkaway and take their chances,citing the EU wanting to steam roll the UK into doing what they say.


  • Options
    #7877
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    You really do have the whole thing upside down in your head!
    Even as someone who thinks the EU is a good thing I`d rather Britain walkaway and take their chances,citing the EU wanting to steam roll the UK into doing what they say.

    The EU isn't steamrollering anything. They have rules, standards etc, the UK has left because they do not want to be limited by the EU rules etc. The EU is just stating what will be the basis for them to get into any discussions, the UK can take it or leave it. How is the EU steamrollering anything? The suggestion that the EU is bigger than the UK is irrelevant. The UK has always known that the EU is bigger than the UK but chose to leave anyway. Its true they have to play by EU rules or not at all, but in no way is this steamrollering, it is what it is, the EU's negotiating stance.


  • Options
    #7878
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I couldn't understand why many in the UK tory government (which to my consternation won by a landslide)speak of just cutting negotiations short and telling the EU to 'stick their negotiations where the sun don't shine '.

    Well it's pretty easy to understand really. For years, the UK press has been telling people that they are wonderful and the EU is terrible. Very few people seem to challenge this, and when they do, they do it badly (from an English point of view, Scotts and Northern Irish people are reasonably clear on the benefits of the EU). So people want to believe that the UK is great and the EU is terrible.

    As rational actors, politicians will say whatever it takes to get elected. In this case, being strong on Brexit will get you elected. A no deal Brexit, if done to cock a snook at the EU, is reasonably popular, but a bad deal (compared to what they promised) would be very unpopular. So the only way for these politicians, who have been elected on a UK great, EU bad platform, to maintain their positions, is to argue for a no deal Brexit.
    Perhaps the UK saying they'll walk away isn't meant as a threat-its a statement of intent because obviously the UK cutting all ties wouldn't harm the EU.

    The UK cutting all ties would harm the EU. The EU doesn't want that. But the EU considers that simply agreeing to the UK's demands would be much worse.

    Personally, I think it's going to be a no deal on 1st Jan. There might be a deal after that. But I also think that all of Europe, indeed the world, will be in a recession by then. Possibly the covid-19 crisis, if it gets really bad (not to denigrate what has already happened, but the fear would be we are only at the start of it) could mark the end of the push towards globalised free trade that we saw from the late 80s up to now. If that is the case, we are all headed for a recession/depression. And if that is the case, then we may as well take the Brexit hit now and see where the chips fall.


  • Options
    #7879
    fash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭fash


    looksee wrote: »
    You really do have the whole thing upside down in your head!



    The EU isn't steamrollering anything. They have rules, standards etc, the UK has left because they do not want to be limited by the EU rules etc. The EU is just stating what will be the basis for them to get into any discussions, the UK can take it or leave it. How is the EU steamrollering anything? The suggestion that the EU is bigger than the UK is irrelevant. The UK has always known that the EU is bigger than the UK but chose to leave anyway. Its true they have to play by EU rules or not at all, but in no way is this steamrollering, it is what it is, the EU's negotiating stance.
    The EU is a compromise between 27 states. The UK is 1. The UK left the EU on the basis that the EU insufficiently flexible for the UK. Now on the outside, you want the EU to be more flexible? If they were, the Brexiters would have been proved right.
    The UK has left. The UK is entitled to nothing. The UK's expectations should be that it leaves with nothing and is entitled to nothing - unless it offers something sufficiently enticing that the EU should care. So far, it has not - that is the UK's problem no one else's.

    As for "steamrolling", let us not forget that it was the UK which boasted of "the easiest deal in history"; "they need us more than we need them'; "we hold all the cards" - and now you find "steamrolling" offensive?!
    The sheer and offensive arrogance!!
    Not only that - the jaw-dropping naivety!! The UK has already been steamrolled by the mighty Faroe islands- just wait to see what the US, China, Mercosur, Japan and Australia etc. do.


  • Options
    #7880
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Even as someone who thinks the EU is a good thing I`d rather Britain walkaway and take their chances,citing the EU wanting to steam roll the UK into doing what they say.

    If only there was a way the UK could have had an input on EU decision making and a veto of big decisions...


  • Options
    #7881
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    Sheer and offensive arrogance is a bit strong I think .No offense meant but I'll wait and see how negotiations pan out rather than take anything one of the posters from the fascinating myriad of anti British threads here on boards has to say as gospel.

    I may come across as one of the 'fascinating myriad of anti British' but I am in fact a Brit - albeit long absent - and I am not so much anti Brit as absolutely disgusted with the rubbish that has been emanating from the country in the last few years. It is not the Britain that I remember, its total amateur hour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7882
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,576 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    A story about the good cooperation of the EU, dealing with the crises instead of discussing (or quibbling if you want to use that word) who will pay for what eventually,

    UK turns to EU support for repatriation flights

    The UK will use a mechanism where the EU will fund 75% of the cost for repatriation flights, as long as other EU nationals are assisted with these flights as well. Ireland recently sent a flight to Peru and 85 UK citizens were brought back on that flight.
    Britain has quietly obtained EU support to help cover the costs of repatriation flights from Japan, the US and Peru during the coronavirus crisis, taking advantage of a Brussels programme that subsidises efforts to bring back stranded nationals. 

    The UK has run a total of at least six such jointly funded emergency flights as part of an EU scheme that has helped more than 14,000 people get home since the start of the pandemic, according to the latest European Commission data. 

    The EU civil protection mechanism, administered by the commission since 2001 to help after natural disasters, covers 75 per cent of the costs of government-organised repatriation flights on condition that the passengers include citizens of multiple countries from the bloc.

    Now call me cynical, but why be quiet about this? This is a good thing, right? You get the EU to fund most of your repatriation costs and you get your citizens home. They have left and after possibly 31 December this year there will be no more assistance like this, so enjoy the benefits while you can. Its like a person using status benefits from a programme they have accrued but knowing they will not meet the threshold for the new year to maintain status. Sometimes they give you a few months to still enjoy what you had, this is the same for the UK. No need to be quiet about it.


  • Options
    #7883
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,376 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Now call me cynical, but why be quiet about this? This is a good thing, right? You get the EU to fund most of your repatriation costs and you get your citizens home. They have left and after possibly 31 December this year there will be no more assistance like this, so enjoy the benefits while you can. Its like a person using status benefits from a programme they have accrued but knowing they will not meet the threshold for the new year to maintain status. Sometimes they give you a few months to still enjoy what you had, this is the same for the UK. No need to be quiet about it.

    Because it undermines the idea of great, global Britain going it alone in the world and suggests that a deep partnership with the EU is a good thing.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #7884
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,802 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Enzokk wrote: »
    A story about the good cooperation of the EU, dealing with the crises instead of discussing (or quibbling if you want to use that word) who will pay for what eventually,
    The UK response looks as badly done as the rest of Brexit. Going it alone indeed.


    From a week ago
    Around 187,000 of the roughly 200,000 Germans stranded overseas due to the coronavirus pandemic have been flown home. The vast majority of those still abroad are in New Zealand.

    From today, now that NZ is allowing people to leave.
    Coronavirus: Lufthansa, Condor flights arrive in New Zealand to continue German repatriation

    Meanwhile in India
    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-uk-citizens-india-lockdown-return-flights-fares-rescue-a9447856.html
    British citizens stranded in India by the coronavirus lockdown must wait several more days for the first repatriation flights to the UK – which will initially serve only three locations across the vast country.

    ...
    Seven India UK repatriation flights have been arranged, starting with a flight on Wednesday 8 April from Goa to London Stansted.


    But there were flights from Goa on Saturday
    A rescue flight with more than 70 Irish citizens on board has taken off from Goa in India.

    Other European citizens, as well as passengers from countries including Brazil and Canada, are also on board the flight.

    The Irish citizens are set to return home via London.
    via London :rolleyes:


    About that Peru flight. In another show of soft power the UK outsources.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-uk-travellers-repatriation-flights-philippines-peru-a9447966.html
    British tourists seeking to fly home from the Philippines must pay £1,000 for a repatriation flight – four times more than travellers flown home from Peru.

    In normal times, connecting flights via Istanbul cost around £350 one way.
    ..
    They will use Philippine Airlines rather than any of the UK carriers that have agreed to repatriate British citizens


  • Options
    #7885
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,576 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Here is data on the repatriation of EU citizens and those that are benefiting from it as well,

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1247546796563447808?s=20


  • Options
    #7886
    Headshot
    Registered Users Posts: 53,900 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    Enzokk wrote: »
    Here is data on the repatriation of EU citizens and those that are benefiting from it as well,

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1247546796563447808?s=20

    Is there a reason why the UK are allowed to take advantage even though they are out of the EU?


  • Options
    #7887
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Headshot wrote: »
    Is there a reason why the UK are allowed to take advantage even though they are out of the EU?

    Because they are considered as part of the EU for the rest of the transition period and because we're sound and don't hold grudges.


  • Options
    #7888
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Look at this, EU countries helping other EU countries.

    https://twitter.com/luigidimaio/status/1247579782960865290

    Does this count as the EU doing nothing so?


  • Options
    #7889
    Headshot
    Registered Users Posts: 53,900 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Because they are considered as part of the EU for the rest of the transition period and because we're sound and don't hold grudges.

    The EU is actually funding fund 75% of the cost for repatriation flights, do you not see anything wrong that for an ex member?

    It annoys me that it's not 50/50


  • Options
    #7890
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Headshot wrote: »
    The EU is actually funding fund 75% of the cost for repatriation flights, do you not see anything wrong that for an ex member?

    It annoys me that it's not 50/50

    It annoys me too. But hey, they're the minnow in all of this, so maybe it's right they only contribute a little bit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7891
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,897 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    May have been mentioned already, but the blocking of Corona Bonds by certain EU countries sounds worrying to me. So much for the unity of the EU.

    Time will tell.

    UK might have been correct after all, we are all on our own now anyway.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement