"a) Well, that's a very old and since then defunct point. It was also clarified that the idea was just as i stated that the "security" demanded was that people who is in GB based on one set of circumstance not be put in difficult situations just because the circumstances now are changing. Also a little part was the rather violent waves of anti-immigrant stuff that happened after the vote, but that seems to have died down a bit. In return, GB citizens in the EU already have the "extra" security the GB was asking for, so there was nothing to give there. And since then a lot of countries have implemented rather generous special rules for GB citizens on their own. It's not really a valid point anymore, if it ever was."
I was referring to what was being said at the time, the bad faith it showed by the EU in seeking to mislead people and demonise Britain and their unwillingness to make even a basic commitment. Yes most countries have made commitments to protect Brits in the EU as Britain has given guarantees about the EU citizens here but the basic dishonesty shown by the EU has caused much confusion and concern by the people affected [on both sides] and poisoned attempts to resolve Brexit
"b) Of course the EU insists. Having your governing facilities on your own territory is a very basic thing. There is a reason embassies are on sovereign land. Would the GB accept it if they had to leave their government departements outside of their borders and control? No way. No country or governed area works that way, and asking the EU to do so "just because" is rather silly. And the costs asked are incurred due to the GB leaving. Being asked to cover that is really to be expected."
Except that in many cases their not "governing facilities" but things like joint research facilities and the like. Which could well continue working perfectly well as they are rather than uprooting them and their workers [both British and non-Brits] Plus if the EU decides arbitrarily to move them that is up to the EU NOT Britain.
If your were divorcing a partner and the two of you had kept your own places but both had paid for things in each house would you be happy if your ex said "what's in my house is mine, anything in your house I've paid anything towards is mine and I'm going to charge you for moving it"?
Plus this ignores the 2nd point that having argued this was the basis for the new subsidy when 1st talking about it their now claiming its something totally different so Britain will have to pay whether or not there is a deal.
"c) Once again, of course they are insisting on it. Even with a deal in place the border still needs to be there. Not as strictly controlled maybe, bur free movement? No. No other country has this, so why should GB be given special treatment? Your own politicians decided to blow smoke and promise stuff knowing full well it was not going to happen. That does not make the EU accountable for it and they have been very clear from the start about the border issue towards non-members.
None of this can possible come as a surprise, and had GB politians been honest from the start i very much doubt the vote would have gone the way it did. But the consequences is not on the EU. They are like i said, standing by and watchen the wreck happen. The actual drivers are your own politicians and they seem content with not even slowing down."
That is factually inaccurate. Its the EU that has offered the chimera of some agreement on the border with Ireland, and even insisted that this MUST happen, then rejecting every offer Britain has put forward. If they had been honest from the start and admitted they would never accept the continuation of the GDA then a lot of time and effort wouldn't have been wasted. But then they would have to admit that it was them throwing Ireland under the bus rather that seeking to blame Britain.
Yes there has been a lot of stupidity from politicians in Britain, both remain and leave and I would have argued for open acceptance that the EU won't allow the GFA to survive so there's no point trying to find an agreement that isn't there quite a while back. However you still have EU politicians and remainers arguing that Britain must find a solution to keep the border open.
As I said before its basically a divorce. Unfortunately the EU has been determined to make it as messy as possible with a lot of lying, insults and threats. Things could have been so much simplier for all involved.
"All in all: The EU don't have to "negotiate responsibly". Leaving was never a negotiation. That whole idea is made up by the GB politicians. You want out? Sure: There's the door, but any member-benefits ends when you step outside and there is no half-in/half-out. This was made extremely clear from the start and GB still voted out. That's on them, not the EU and if any blame should be thrown around it should land squarely at the feet of GB leaders deceiving it's people. "
Its been the EU that insisted there must be negotiations, just as after the vote on leaving it was then pushing the new May government to activate article 50 so they could start negotiating. Yes they could have admitted from the start they were adopting a dog in the manger attitude and that they were going to waste as much time and cause as much confusion as possible but they didn't.
Again it all goes back to the bad faith and dishonesty shown by the EU throughout the entire process.
60
@belga
"a) Well, that's a very old and since then defunct point. It was also clarified that the idea was just as i stated that the "security" demanded was that people who is in GB based on one set of circumstance not be put in difficult situations just because the circumstances now are changing. Also a little part was the rather violent waves of anti-immigrant stuff that happened after the vote, but that seems to have died down a bit. In return, GB citizens in the EU already have the "extra" security the GB was asking for, so there was nothing to give there. And since then a lot of countries have implemented rather generous special rules for GB citizens on their own. It's not really a valid point anymore, if it ever was."
I was referring to what was being said at the time, the bad faith it showed by the EU in seeking to mislead people and demonise Britain and their unwillingness to make even a basic commitment. Yes most countries have made commitments to protect Brits in the EU as Britain has given guarantees about the EU citizens here but the basic dishonesty shown by the EU has caused much confusion and concern by the people affected [on both sides] and poisoned attempts to resolve Brexit
"b) Of course the EU insists. Having your governing facilities on your own territory is a very basic thing. There is a reason embassies are on sovereign land. Would the GB accept it if they had to leave their government departements outside of their borders and control? No way. No country or governed area works that way, and asking the EU to do so "just because" is rather silly. And the costs asked are incurred due to the GB leaving. Being asked to cover that is really to be expected."
Except that in many cases their not "governing facilities" but things like joint research facilities and the like. Which could well continue working perfectly well as they are rather than uprooting them and their workers [both British and non-Brits] Plus if the EU decides arbitrarily to move them that is up to the EU NOT Britain.
If your were divorcing a partner and the two of you had kept your own places but both had paid for things in each house would you be happy if your ex said "what's in my house is mine, anything in your house I've paid anything towards is mine and I'm going to charge you for moving it"?
Plus this ignores the 2nd point that having argued this was the basis for the new subsidy when 1st talking about it their now claiming its something totally different so Britain will have to pay whether or not there is a deal.
"c) Once again, of course they are insisting on it. Even with a deal in place the border still needs to be there. Not as strictly controlled maybe, bur free movement? No. No other country has this, so why should GB be given special treatment? Your own politicians decided to blow smoke and promise stuff knowing full well it was not going to happen. That does not make the EU accountable for it and they have been very clear from the start about the border issue towards non-members.
None of this can possible come as a surprise, and had GB politians been honest from the start i very much doubt the vote would have gone the way it did. But the consequences is not on the EU. They are like i said, standing by and watchen the wreck happen. The actual drivers are your own politicians and they seem content with not even slowing down."
That is factually inaccurate. Its the EU that has offered the chimera of some agreement on the border with Ireland, and even insisted that this MUST happen, then rejecting every offer Britain has put forward. If they had been honest from the start and admitted they would never accept the continuation of the GDA then a lot of time and effort wouldn't have been wasted. But then they would have to admit that it was them throwing Ireland under the bus rather that seeking to blame Britain.
Yes there has been a lot of stupidity from politicians in Britain, both remain and leave and I would have argued for open acceptance that the EU won't allow the GFA to survive so there's no point trying to find an agreement that isn't there quite a while back. However you still have EU politicians and remainers arguing that Britain must find a solution to keep the border open.
As I said before its basically a divorce. Unfortunately the EU has been determined to make it as messy as possible with a lot of lying, insults and threats. Things could have been so much simplier for all involved.
"All in all: The EU don't have to "negotiate responsibly". Leaving was never a negotiation. That whole idea is made up by the GB politicians. You want out? Sure: There's the door, but any member-benefits ends when you step outside and there is no half-in/half-out. This was made extremely clear from the start and GB still voted out. That's on them, not the EU and if any blame should be thrown around it should land squarely at the feet of GB leaders deceiving it's people. "
Its been the EU that insisted there must be negotiations, just as after the vote on leaving it was then pushing the new May government to activate article 50 so they could start negotiating. Yes they could have admitted from the start they were adopting a dog in the manger attitude and that they were going to waste as much time and cause as much confusion as possible but they didn't.
Again it all goes back to the bad faith and dishonesty shown by the EU throughout the entire process.