a) Basically whats being asked is that GB not be allowed to go: "We agreed to this, but we changed our minds and now regular people are gonna pay for it since we're kicking them out". That's hardly "extra-territorial", it's basic decency. It only applies to people who are already there and the ask is basically that GB not be assholes to the little people.
Evidence please? I know of no case where Britain has talked about expelling people and they have confirmed that all EU citizens currently in Britain can stay. I was referring to two points quite early in the 'negotiations where there was an exchange something like this - 3 years back so can't remember the exact wording.
EU - "we want security for EU citizens in Britain"
UK - "Of course, but we hope you will do the same for Brits in the EU"
EU - "How dare you hold our people hostage!"
and also the EU's insistence that EU citizens in the UK come under EU rather than British law - that last is definitely seeking extra-territorial privileges.
b) Nobody's forcing GB out of the EU. Stuff was placed there based on agreements that GB now want's out of. Not a problem, they're free to leave. Paying for the cost of your own choices however is not really unexpected, or unfair.
There were agreements on facilities common to EU members which included the UK and which we paid a share in. If the EU insists on moving those after Britain leaves then its their decision and hence they should pay the costs. Britain could even have a case for a rebate for the money it committed to those resources. However to say that Britain should meet EU costs is dishonest and arrogant. Not to mention as their now saying if Britain leaves without a deal - no its nothing to do with that but we still expect money from you anyway.
c) Ehm... what? Having borders against others is kind of a big part of brexit. But if the same thing goes the other way it's bad? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Demanding that you be left out and closed off, but for that to only apply one-way is kinda hypocritical.
I agree but the EU is insisting on it. Britain would be quite happy with a free trade deal with the EU like it has with other nations. Both the people and government of Britain would also like to continue the open border situation with Ireland as it helps prevent terrorism re-emerging. The people of Ireland also want the GFA to stay. The EU says it wants it as well but has continued to raise barriers to prevent it. The reason why the May deal failed Parliament three times was because the EU were demanding control of the UK for as long as the EU wanted with the UK having no say at all on the matter.
It is noted that the repeated threats to the GFA by the EU have seen an upsurge in terrorism with one reporter already murdered and several attempts to kill members of the police. The EU already has blood on its hands over this issue and I fear there's going to be much more.
d and e) Not really gonna argue this, because: bad PR and history revision in politics!? Oh noes... ;)
That's the way the EU operates unfortunately. Because the site doesn't show what message your responding to and I replied to a number of anti-British outbursts I'm not sure what points d and e were but think one was about the mockery over David Davis having minimal paperwork in front of him at a photo shoot. Lets look at the facts here:
i) Its common sense not to have details on display at such cases, since its not a final deal. A few years back a cabinet minister was photoed going into Downing Street with some notes under his arm. Since they weren't in a folder a blow-up of the photo by the paper involved showed what he was going to be discussing and he quite properly got reprimanded for it.
ii) The photo with Davis having basically an empty pad in front of him and the EU having huge heaps of paperwork, albeit probably fake, gives a good insight into the attitudes with Britain having an open mind and the EU having masses of demands and conditions.
iii) Having set up the photo shoot and knowing i) above the fact that the EU representatives choose to deliberately seek to humiliate Davis about it shows at the very least bad faith, which has been repeated throughout the process as they keep changing their arguments and making new demands every time Britain makes concessions.
TL;DR: If you don't wanna be in the club that's fine, but you also don't get any special treatment and you're still expected to hold up your end of stuff you've already agreed to. That's a perfectly fair stance in pretty much all circumstances.
We don't want special treatment. We have held up our end on agreements while a member. Its just that we reject the Tusk view that the EU can continue to charge us for their expensive after we're left. As I say he highlighted this in his drinking club comparison but seems to have totally missed how much he was torpedoing the EU position. If Britain does leave it seems likely, given the EU refusal to negotiate responsibly, it will be without a deal. In which case neither side will own the other anything and that will be largely the EU's responsibility.
60
@belga
Lets take this one point at a time:
a) Basically whats being asked is that GB not be allowed to go: "We agreed to this, but we changed our minds and now regular people are gonna pay for it since we're kicking them out". That's hardly "extra-territorial", it's basic decency. It only applies to people who are already there and the ask is basically that GB not be assholes to the little people.
Evidence please? I know of no case where Britain has talked about expelling people and they have confirmed that all EU citizens currently in Britain can stay. I was referring to two points quite early in the 'negotiations where there was an exchange something like this - 3 years back so can't remember the exact wording.
EU - "we want security for EU citizens in Britain"
UK - "Of course, but we hope you will do the same for Brits in the EU"
EU - "How dare you hold our people hostage!"
and also the EU's insistence that EU citizens in the UK come under EU rather than British law - that last is definitely seeking extra-territorial privileges.
b) Nobody's forcing GB out of the EU. Stuff was placed there based on agreements that GB now want's out of. Not a problem, they're free to leave. Paying for the cost of your own choices however is not really unexpected, or unfair.
There were agreements on facilities common to EU members which included the UK and which we paid a share in. If the EU insists on moving those after Britain leaves then its their decision and hence they should pay the costs. Britain could even have a case for a rebate for the money it committed to those resources. However to say that Britain should meet EU costs is dishonest and arrogant. Not to mention as their now saying if Britain leaves without a deal - no its nothing to do with that but we still expect money from you anyway.
c) Ehm... what? Having borders against others is kind of a big part of brexit. But if the same thing goes the other way it's bad? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Demanding that you be left out and closed off, but for that to only apply one-way is kinda hypocritical.
I agree but the EU is insisting on it. Britain would be quite happy with a free trade deal with the EU like it has with other nations. Both the people and government of Britain would also like to continue the open border situation with Ireland as it helps prevent terrorism re-emerging. The people of Ireland also want the GFA to stay. The EU says it wants it as well but has continued to raise barriers to prevent it. The reason why the May deal failed Parliament three times was because the EU were demanding control of the UK for as long as the EU wanted with the UK having no say at all on the matter.
It is noted that the repeated threats to the GFA by the EU have seen an upsurge in terrorism with one reporter already murdered and several attempts to kill members of the police. The EU already has blood on its hands over this issue and I fear there's going to be much more.
d and e) Not really gonna argue this, because: bad PR and history revision in politics!? Oh noes... ;)
That's the way the EU operates unfortunately. Because the site doesn't show what message your responding to and I replied to a number of anti-British outbursts I'm not sure what points d and e were but think one was about the mockery over David Davis having minimal paperwork in front of him at a photo shoot. Lets look at the facts here:
i) Its common sense not to have details on display at such cases, since its not a final deal. A few years back a cabinet minister was photoed going into Downing Street with some notes under his arm. Since they weren't in a folder a blow-up of the photo by the paper involved showed what he was going to be discussing and he quite properly got reprimanded for it.
ii) The photo with Davis having basically an empty pad in front of him and the EU having huge heaps of paperwork, albeit probably fake, gives a good insight into the attitudes with Britain having an open mind and the EU having masses of demands and conditions.
iii) Having set up the photo shoot and knowing i) above the fact that the EU representatives choose to deliberately seek to humiliate Davis about it shows at the very least bad faith, which has been repeated throughout the process as they keep changing their arguments and making new demands every time Britain makes concessions.
TL;DR: If you don't wanna be in the club that's fine, but you also don't get any special treatment and you're still expected to hold up your end of stuff you've already agreed to. That's a perfectly fair stance in pretty much all circumstances.
We don't want special treatment. We have held up our end on agreements while a member. Its just that we reject the Tusk view that the EU can continue to charge us for their expensive after we're left. As I say he highlighted this in his drinking club comparison but seems to have totally missed how much he was torpedoing the EU position. If Britain does leave it seems likely, given the EU refusal to negotiate responsibly, it will be without a deal. In which case neither side will own the other anything and that will be largely the EU's responsibility.