i agree. it's also what i was hoping for from the very beginning. that does, however, not mean that i'm not aware that it'll still cost us a lot...



thank you for the compliment, but i'm sure that if i was able to figure that out years ago, those 'multinational corporations' and their 'stooges in brussels' managed to do the same. a no deal brexit is still cheaper than a split up EU - so for further questions read my post again...

who says that offering the Brits a better deal would necessarily lead to the EU splitting up?
and who says a setback of the EU project would necessarily cause greater economic losses than cutting ties with the second-largest economy in the union? the UK accounts for 17% of the EU's gdp after all.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/2015_GDP_(nominal)_in_EU.svg

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2019 05:38am

Hey now hey now.

This is an official forum. You will address him by either "Monsieur" or "Mr President".

No, he wants to be addressed by "Monsieur Le President de la Republique".

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/insolite/tu-m-appelles-monsieur-le-president-de-la-republique-ou-monsieur-emmanuel-macron-recadre-un-jeune-au-1529335534

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 16 2019 06:21am

can you define a 'better deal' then?
don't get me wrong, i'm not talking about tiny details, i'm talking about a deal that clearly goes against at least one of the EU cornerstones because you think it's disadvantageous (free movement for example), but upholds another one because you think it benefits you (free access to the single market). that would most definitely lead to the EU falling apart since every nation would want to negotiate a deal to maximise its benefits. and since you asked, the person 'who says' that is mr commonsense...

and even if there was a realistic possibility (spoiler alert: there isn't, too many ideologues and bureaucrats in brussels) for a union of economically healthy core members (which i personally would prefer, i've always been critical of our multiple south- and east-expansions), there would be significant short- and medium-term consequences - and given their track record within the union it's not a stretch to expect the brits to demand special treatment and concessions in such a union as well...

Hold up. I keep repeatedly getting told that free movement is a huge benefit, why would taking away this huge benefit from Britain have every other eu member asking for the same "punishment"?

I've been saying this for a long time: there is no substantial reason why 'freedom of goods' necessarily has to go hand-in-hand with 'freedom of movement'. The EU has elevated 'freedom of movement' into the status of a cornerstone out of ideological reasons, and since EU-wide access to cheap labor is benefitting their corporate overlords.

In a similar mold, there is no real reason why we couldnt at least try technological solutions to the issues with the Irish border. And there sure as hell is no substantial reason why the backstop of May's rejected brexit deal should be set without an expiration date. Just like there is no good reason why the entire UK should still be subject to every ruling of EU courts, even on issues which have nothing to do with Northern Ireland, while the backstop is in effect.

You’re goddamn right.

Not sure I want to though 🤔

oh really? who kept telling you that, and what perspective were they coming from? you do realise that different members profit from different aspects to varying degrees, right?
in all seriousness, i realise what you're trying to do there, but it's not only a fundamentally flawed and unsophisticated 'argument', it also completely ignores political realities...



sorry, but that's not some revolutionary thought which, alongside an attention-grabbin 'well, technically...', could turn the negotiation on its head.
we've agreed on that multiple times already, but that would have (and has) been a discussion of principles amongst members. the EU is obviously not a union solely based on the logical consequences of what you and i might consider its most useful or beneficial aspect, but i just assumed that's something we're all aware of.

you can rightfully point to things like corporate influence, the lack of transparency, ideological stubbornness, little direct involvement by EU citizens, and certainly another dozen of reasons to criticise the process and current state of the EU. i'm just wondering in what way you think it conflicts with my point that brussels simply can't afford to soften up those principles during the EXIT negotiations of one of its members without triggering the others to insist on equally favourable treatment.

so again, your resentment is duly noted (and partly shared), but i hope you realise that it's pointless, a purely emotional objection that bears no relevance for the current negotiations.