Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Britain & Us No Longer 'reliable Allies'
37 Answers
Should we be concerned by Merkel's comments and can we afford poor relations at a difficult time for Europe?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. 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.
Well put it this way, Togo -- I'm not sure which one of us is applying greater double standards. After all, in May's article 50 letter she included some line about how failure to reach a deal could mean consequences for security and cooperation in combatting terrorism. A threat, or a pragmatic statement of the truth?
And if it's the latter, then why are EU "pragmatic statements" always seen as threats? Paying 100 billion euros represents a ten-year "severance fee", maybe less, but could just amount to meeting our commitments for the next few years rather than abruptly pulling out and leaving a huge hole in the EU's budget. I'm not sure it's punitive exactly -- and anyway, presumably it's still negotiable.
And if it's the latter, then why are EU "pragmatic statements" always seen as threats? Paying 100 billion euros represents a ten-year "severance fee", maybe less, but could just amount to meeting our commitments for the next few years rather than abruptly pulling out and leaving a huge hole in the EU's budget. I'm not sure it's punitive exactly -- and anyway, presumably it's still negotiable.
jim//Paying 100 billion euros represents a ten-year "severance fee",//
There is no such thing as a severance fee and the figure is simply grabbed out of thin air. The idea of walking away and paying nothing isn't realistic. Where the UK has commitments to existing projects it will surely honour them, but there is the factor that Britain has invested large sums into the EU infrastructure which will remain after departure and that too must be part of the negotiations.
We should also take into consideration that last year, the Office for National Statistics says that we bought about £90 billion more in goods than we sold to other EU countries, - 1 in 7 of all passenger cars produced by Germany are exported to the UK - at the same time, we ran a £20 billion trade surplus in services, selling more than we bought. So our overall trade deficit in goods and services was about £70 billion overall.
Departure is going to require level-headed business discussion and there is no room for 'here today and gone tomorrow' politician's rhetoric.
There is no such thing as a severance fee and the figure is simply grabbed out of thin air. The idea of walking away and paying nothing isn't realistic. Where the UK has commitments to existing projects it will surely honour them, but there is the factor that Britain has invested large sums into the EU infrastructure which will remain after departure and that too must be part of the negotiations.
We should also take into consideration that last year, the Office for National Statistics says that we bought about £90 billion more in goods than we sold to other EU countries, - 1 in 7 of all passenger cars produced by Germany are exported to the UK - at the same time, we ran a £20 billion trade surplus in services, selling more than we bought. So our overall trade deficit in goods and services was about £70 billion overall.
Departure is going to require level-headed business discussion and there is no room for 'here today and gone tomorrow' politician's rhetoric.
I see some are still using the EU and (the mainland countries of) Europe as bring synonymous.
There can be no severance fee. We would fairly look into claimed agreed financial responsibilities. No doubt evidence/proof of such an agreement for each claim can be provided for consideration of legitimacy. Maybe the EU can show the books to the accountants for independent checking. It seems we won't be off for two more whole years, hardly abrupt.
There can be no severance fee. We would fairly look into claimed agreed financial responsibilities. No doubt evidence/proof of such an agreement for each claim can be provided for consideration of legitimacy. Maybe the EU can show the books to the accountants for independent checking. It seems we won't be off for two more whole years, hardly abrupt.
IMO the bringing up of possible consequences for security and cooperation in combatting terrorism, was a mistake. One ought not have dropped to the level of those trying to force the UK negotiation team's hand in advance of negotiations, some who were demanding assurances on various subjects, and others making threats about how the UK will pay for leaving. But in the circumstances I can understand the desire to prove two can play the sabre rattling game.
OG, I would have thought it clear that the US was no longer a reliable ally over terrorism. As we've seen recently, you pass some inside information to them and next day it's in the morning papers. Merkel will have realised that the same will happen if the EU shares intelligence with the UK: it'll soon be in the New York Times. Until the US sorts its leaks out, it's an unreliable ally, and Britain should be thinking along the same lines as Merkel.
The suggestion that the UK leaks secrets when we were the main victims of the recent US media leak, is not a reasonable nor a fair claim.
That the US media and Trump have acted irresponsibly recently does not mean that they have become an unreliable ally nor does it mean that they won't have learnt anything from their recent foolish errors and will continue to make them.
I think Merkel's comment was ill considered, undiplomatic, and was more about binding the EU together without regard to relations with friendly nations. I'd say she should have known better than to spout such nonsense but I suspect it was a deliberate gamble in the international political arena.
That the US media and Trump have acted irresponsibly recently does not mean that they have become an unreliable ally nor does it mean that they won't have learnt anything from their recent foolish errors and will continue to make them.
I think Merkel's comment was ill considered, undiplomatic, and was more about binding the EU together without regard to relations with friendly nations. I'd say she should have known better than to spout such nonsense but I suspect it was a deliberate gamble in the international political arena.
“We have never said that we would not be close allies, supporters and friends of European states - just that we don't want to be part of the EU. Can't she understand that?”
No she cannot. To most European politicians (including many in the UK) Europe is the EU and the EU is Europe. They cannot grasp a model where there is one without the other.
“…you lot voted for Brexit and seem to think everyone will still love us…”
I voted to leave but I think no such thing. I couldn’t care less whether everyone loves us or not. All I care about is that the UK makes a swift and unqualified withdrawal from the EU. Anything that follows, such as the loss of affection from some of our neighbours, is simply acceptable collateral damage.
No she cannot. To most European politicians (including many in the UK) Europe is the EU and the EU is Europe. They cannot grasp a model where there is one without the other.
“…you lot voted for Brexit and seem to think everyone will still love us…”
I voted to leave but I think no such thing. I couldn’t care less whether everyone loves us or not. All I care about is that the UK makes a swift and unqualified withdrawal from the EU. Anything that follows, such as the loss of affection from some of our neighbours, is simply acceptable collateral damage.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Farleigh Hospice Food And Drink
Quizzes & Puzzles17 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.