Religion & Spirituality2 mins ago
No Deal Implications For Europe?
What are the implications of a possible No Deal from the European point of view?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Thursday. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If we continue talking in terms of a club then the club's rules are what governs during membership - those who do not accept the rules either leave or don't join in the first place. Non- or ex-members can voice their opinion (alone or to/with others) but that really counts for nothing if the opinions receive no interest.
Whoever leaves can of course hope to have with the club a continuing relationship fitting their wishes/fantasy but the club does not even have to listen to any suggestions. If the club decides to listen then it is no surprise if they suit themselves as to whether to take any notice. If no "special" arrangement is agreed or forthcoming then the club and ex-member will simply abide by all laws and regulations already established for each type of interaction - "can I borrow a chair ?", "no but we'll rent one to you and require a security which will be refunded". Breaking in is against law, removing without permission is against the law, otherwise a non-member has the right to buy/rent his own choice of alternative wherever he wants and at the price he can find.
It is still the case that it is not "causing problems" not even to listen to an ex-member asking, insisting, nagging, pleading (any or all of those and more besides) for the club to give him/her something the club does not do for anyone. To listen and respond is the best that can realistically be hoped for of the club. Hoping for what one asks for is natural but when it is something nobody has ever had then disappointment over denial does not deserve a lot of sympathy. Pouring out vitriol over the rebuttal proves something about the request and its promoter.
Whoever leaves can of course hope to have with the club a continuing relationship fitting their wishes/fantasy but the club does not even have to listen to any suggestions. If the club decides to listen then it is no surprise if they suit themselves as to whether to take any notice. If no "special" arrangement is agreed or forthcoming then the club and ex-member will simply abide by all laws and regulations already established for each type of interaction - "can I borrow a chair ?", "no but we'll rent one to you and require a security which will be refunded". Breaking in is against law, removing without permission is against the law, otherwise a non-member has the right to buy/rent his own choice of alternative wherever he wants and at the price he can find.
It is still the case that it is not "causing problems" not even to listen to an ex-member asking, insisting, nagging, pleading (any or all of those and more besides) for the club to give him/her something the club does not do for anyone. To listen and respond is the best that can realistically be hoped for of the club. Hoping for what one asks for is natural but when it is something nobody has ever had then disappointment over denial does not deserve a lot of sympathy. Pouring out vitriol over the rebuttal proves something about the request and its promoter.
“Save you doing it 95 times, there isn't a lot of difference in those two statements.”
There is if you take on board the implication when the point was made originally:
------
// an open border in Ireland, //
I thought Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of our own borders?
------
The implication from that is that an open border in Ireland is incompatible with the UK wanting to control its own borders.
There is if you take on board the implication when the point was made originally:
------
// an open border in Ireland, //
I thought Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of our own borders?
------
The implication from that is that an open border in Ireland is incompatible with the UK wanting to control its own borders.
When one compares with something else one needs to know where the comparison breaks down.
Individual members leaving a club need not have anything more to do with each other, so the club can run itself how it wishes. A nation leaving a power block that was telling it what it must do will still want/need to trade with each other so it is incumbent upon both to agree the future relationship in a mature manner. Not stick there saying, "No no no, our club our rules, you leave and we make it as difficult as we can".
Individual members leaving a club need not have anything more to do with each other, so the club can run itself how it wishes. A nation leaving a power block that was telling it what it must do will still want/need to trade with each other so it is incumbent upon both to agree the future relationship in a mature manner. Not stick there saying, "No no no, our club our rules, you leave and we make it as difficult as we can".
OG, the answer is "We will deal with each other (EU-UK-EU) in the same way as with everyone else, i.e EU-USA-EU, EU-Pakistan-EU, EU-Chile-EU, etc. If you want to try for modifications of the standard processes then, fine make your proposals. If we don't like the proposals we will not agree on them. If we think they have potential we will discuss them, for as long as it takes to get to a point which suits us."
Karl,
Your analogy of a club is wrong. The EU might be described as such for ease but it isn’t. But even so...
A member of the EU bitching about the EU and trying to change the rules is perfectly allowed. Because those member states have a voting system that allows for changes and That allows for EU wide rules and concessions.
As a member state continually bashing their head against a brick wall because getting the rules changed is an impossibility (rules making it hard to do) we leave.
There has been a great deal of obstacles by the EU saying we can’t cherry pick the bits we want. That in effect is only to stop other countries doing the same as us. Look at the trade deals the EU has done with other countries and you will find that what we want is no different to what other count have. Add to that we have the advantage of already having (at the moment) all the same rules in place the EU does and it becomes obvious the EU are trying to save their own skin, punish the uk, save face, and stop others leaving as well.
Your analogy of a club is wrong. The EU might be described as such for ease but it isn’t. But even so...
A member of the EU bitching about the EU and trying to change the rules is perfectly allowed. Because those member states have a voting system that allows for changes and That allows for EU wide rules and concessions.
As a member state continually bashing their head against a brick wall because getting the rules changed is an impossibility (rules making it hard to do) we leave.
There has been a great deal of obstacles by the EU saying we can’t cherry pick the bits we want. That in effect is only to stop other countries doing the same as us. Look at the trade deals the EU has done with other countries and you will find that what we want is no different to what other count have. Add to that we have the advantage of already having (at the moment) all the same rules in place the EU does and it becomes obvious the EU are trying to save their own skin, punish the uk, save face, and stop others leaving as well.
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Snooker .. Remember The Montage?
Sport5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.