Donald Tusk being special

[Corky34]

There's no defending this.

1. He's using extremely strong language. Whether or not one believes in hell or damnation the concept is about as strong a condemnation as one can muster. It's the sort of statement usually reserved for child rapists, mass murderers etc. Crimes that go beyond politics or law, damnable universally. Something that everyone knows is wrong and from which they should distance themselves.

This might seem pedantic semantics but it's very relevant because...

2. He's being completely hypocritical.

If he believes that it is an obvious, damnable sin to lead an undirected Brexit - presumably because of the damage it will do to people's lives - then how much more to be one who claims to see this but then obstruct a path to a smooth Brexit? A path that could help those very same people and ensure the most prosperous dealings possible going forward.

I actually reject his premise. However, on the merit of his own words he falls.

You can't condemn an immoral failure while you're complicit in it.

He may as well be Genghis Khan condemning the weakness of foreign generals right before massacring their people.

Personally speaking if i drop dead because the MPs wanting to leave without a WA can't keep the medication I'm on in stock then I'd probably be doing much more than just wondering what an imaginary place looks like, not that I'd be doing much as I'd be dead but you get what i mean.

I also don't see how he, or anyone in the EU, would be complicit in the UK leaving without a WA. I know it's been said before but, the UK has chosen to leave, the UK decided to trigger A50 when it did, and the UK has so far rejected the WA, this is the UK's doing and to suggest it's not is like saying a suicide bomber was made to blow himself up.

There were proposals and plans though. One was to conduct the "leave" phase (withdrawal agreement) and "future relationship" (trade desl, etc) in parallel. i.e. start straight away.

But that was vetoed, categorically, by .... who? Oh yes, the EU. Why? They wanted to get the bits they wanted (exit fee, EU citizen's rights, etc) locked down first, and only once "satisfactory progress" (as defined by them) was achieved would they even begin to discuss the future relationship. Which meant we were roughly hslf way through the two yeears. And .... where does the bit about customs and borders come? Right, in the future relationship bit. and if that had been discussed straight away, just maybe we'd be past needing a "backstop" already.

That's not a proposal or plan on what to do or what you want though, it's a proposal or plan for what order something should be done in and for obvious reasons it was rejected because you can't decide on the order of something until you decide what those something involve. Doing so would be like telling someone you want to buy their house but would it be OK if you got the builders in before you've bought it, or trying to come to an arrangement on when you can get access to the kids before you've even got divorced.

It was rejected by the EU for exactly the reasons we're now seeing play out, because parliament can't decide if we should leave with or without a WA and whatever they end up deciding (if they don't just keep kicking the can down the road) is going to have an effect on whatever the trade deal is, just like how splitting a large company between two partners would effect how they deal with each other in the future.

And, of course there hsve been all sits of proposals for avoiding a hard border, from giving companies "registered trader" status and pre-declarastons to technical measures, all of which have been summarily dismissed by .... the EU.

Not only the EU but by the UK also, the UK government has looked at borders all over the world and said there isn't a single one that doesn't have infrastructure on the border, they've also said the technology doesn't exist, it's the politicians who are basically ignoring the civil service reports and insisting that something their being told can't be done can be, or that if they maybe kick the can down the road for long enough someone will invent a technological solution.

Now, it's fair enough for any side in a negotiation to use whatever (legal) means it wants to get the best deal for itself. Which they did. It's certainly not "friendly" but nor is it surprising.

But it isn't fair to then turn around and moan there was no plan, having dismissed outright anything that didn't suit their agenda.

Ah, i see where the confusions come in now. IMO he's not saying the WA isn't a plan, he's saying not signing it would not be a plan, he's being critical of those who say leaving without 'a deal' would be all dandy and nothing to worry about. As he said...

I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely

Is Mrs May's deal a plan? Yes, despite whatever reservation you, i, or anyone may have about it. So IMO what he said was not directed at Mrs May or 'the deal', it was directed at those who believe that leaving without a plan wouldn't be a problem.

The UK Parliament having dismissed the current deal (which, by the way, it isn't because May does not gave the authority to agree it, merely to sign off on a DRAFT to go to Parliament) the EU's position is "no negotiating". As that so-called deal was rejected by a majority unprecedented in British history, and they're not willing to even discuss it, the only conclusions possible from that are :-

a) no deal is possible. Which, of course, results in exactly the same border problems they orofess to be desparate to prevent, or

b) they're trying to bully Parliament, despite that unpecedented vote, into reversing it.

Of course, some fault resides here too. Having had Cameron resign, we should never have allowed w Remain-supporting, tin-eared technocrat like May to he PM, and for that, we have the in-fighting with BJ, Gove, etc, to blame.

Having decided, by public vote, to Leave, we should have had someone that at least believed in Leaving running it, yet we had a Remainer PM who appoinred a Leaver to run talks, but who promptly side-lined him (twice) to let her own unelected flunky do it. I'm still not sure if this was sabotage or merely rank incompetence. She's a ..... manager, an appeaser, trying to satisfy everyone and ending up pkeasing nobody. A bit of a Chsmberlain, really, whichvis somehow ironically apt.

So, Mr. Tusk, by all means blame May for utter incompetence, both in dealing with the EU and her own party, but don't say tnere was no plan, when you yourself were instrumental in sinking anything and everything but what happened.

I won't comment on all of that as it delves a little do deeply into could've, should've, and if only's for me personally, it's something I've recently learn't is better to avoid, we both could probably write an entire essay on how it should have been done.

Having said that what you describe was, IMO, entirely the UK's own doing, no one forced us to make the choice we've made.

And although I've already said it IMO Mr. Tusk wasn't blaming May for utter incompetence, he was pointing the finger directly at those 432 MPs who voted her deal down, Mrs May's deal is 'a plan', we may not like it but it is 'a plan', it's those 432 MPs, especially the ones who promoted leaving the EU, that don't have a plan, it's those 432 MPs who should've sorted their poo out long before we got to this stage.

I agree he knew what he was saying, not least because he apparently (news reports) tweted it again several minutes later.

As for the attitude of eurosceptics, there might be some that would reject any WA, most most, even in the ERG, have been explicit that they support a withdrawal agreement, but not that one, as it stands.

Then they should've sorted all that out before hand, they should've agreed on what the plan was before going up to bat instead of sending the batswoman up to the crease and telling her to make it up as she goes along, you can't blame a workman for doing the job wrong if you've not bothered to tell him how the job should've been done.

You can't blame a builder if you don't get the extension you wanted if all you've told him is you want 'an' extension, you have to tell him where you want it, how many stories, what to build it from, how many windows and where to put them, etc, etc. You either have to agree on a plan before he starts work or get a secret surprise.

[b0redom]

There's no defending this.

1. He's using extremely strong language. Whether or not one believes in hell or damnation the concept is about as strong a condemnation as one can muster. It's the sort of statement usually reserved for child rapists, mass murderers etc.

That depends on how religious you are I guess. I made exactly the same comment about people designing computer languages which care about the number of and difference between spaces and tabs a few months ago, having spent hours banging my head against a wall of code with no obvious reason it was failing. It depends on whether you're taking it figuratively or literally I guess.

[opel80uk]

you can't blame a workman for doing the job wrong if you've not bothered to tell him how the job should've been done.

You can't blame a builder if you don't get the extension you wanted if all you've told him is you want 'an' extension, you have to tell him where you want it, how many stories, what to build it from, how many windows and where to put them, etc, etc. You either have to agree on a plan before he starts work or get a secret surprise.

But what a lot of leavers also wanted, to continue your building analogy, was to be able to tell the Builder what would be an acceptable price & outcome for both the Builder and the person having the extension built. That might work if you're dealing with a one man band down the road who is desperate for the work, but try that on with one of the huge building companies and see how far you get. The UK is the junior negotiating partner, it was obvious to all but the most blinkered that the UK was going to have compromise far more than the EU, and the truth is that for many people who voted leave they are perfectly content with, and IMO often hoping for, a no deal Brexit. It was always going to be the case that those same people would blame the EU for Leavers not getting their cake and eating it too. The irony/tragedy I see in it is that a lot of older generation Leavers did remarkably well economically in the period the the UK was in the EEC and subsequently the EU, often as a direct result of the UK being in the EEC/EU. That they are willing to economically damn the next generation (who voted to remain) with the potential of a no deal Brexit to satisfy their wants is as selfish an act as possible. I don't believe in hell, but there should be a place reserved for them there also.

And the ultimate irony if we do leave? It won't be long before the campaign to re-enter the EU starts in earnest. Only this time, it will be re-entering on the EU's terms, with all the UK's hard earned opt-outs nowhere to be seen.

[peterb]

The irony/tragedy I see in it is that a lot of older generation Leavers did remarkably well economically in the period the the UK was in the EEC and subsequently the EU, often as a direct result of the UK being in the EEC/EU.

Except that the UK is no longer in the EEC because that no longer exists. Had there been a referendum on whether the UK should support the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties that brought about that (unacceptable to many) transformation then perhaps the current debacle would not exist.

The EU bureaucracy treats the citizens of the EU countries with contempt whenever it doesn't get its own way. The EU can compromise on the deal if the risk of a no-deal is as important to them as they claim.

The hand-wringing call for appeasement to the EU is demeaning to the UK.

[Galant]

Verhofstadt followed it up...

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/s...00394027761664

"Well, I doubt Lucifer would welcome them, as after what they did to Britain, they would even manage to divide hell 🙂"

[Galant]

That depends on how religious you are I guess. I made exactly the same comment about people designing computer languages which care about the number of and difference between spaces and tabs a few months ago, having spent hours banging my head against a wall of code with no obvious reason it was failing. It depends on whether you're taking it figuratively or literally I guess.

You're right in that some people use it very lightly to describe frustration etc. However, in this case we're talking about comments from a public figure who is a European leader speaking for millions. If he is just trying to be funny then it isn't obvious. Taken at his word he's indicating that he thinks the leaders made a grave error. As such, he should be more careful with his words.

[Smudger]

Except that the UK is no longer in the EEC because that no longer exists. Had there been a referendum on whether the UK should support the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties that brought about that (unacceptable to many) transformation then perhaps the current debacle would not exist.

The EU bureaucracy treats the citizens of the EU countries with contempt whenever it doesn't get its own way. The EU can compromise on the deal if the risk of a no-deal is as important to them as they claim.

The hand-wringing call for appeasement to the EU is demeaning to the UK.

opel80UK did mention the EU, and that age group have done pretty well since then as well.

The Eu have always said that the 4 freedoms are indivisible, what our glorious government is doing is the equivalent of Mrs Doyle trying to get people to have a cup of tea.

I see no hand-wringing calls for appeasement, I see people saying 'this is bloody stupid'. Danté's 8th ring of hell was for frauds, including corrupt politicians. Messrs Gove, Rees-Mogg and Johnson fit right in there. See for example, Rees-Mogg's retweeting of a Sun article regarding the savings we would make leaving the EU. The Sun retracted as it was wholly inaccurate, Rees-Mogg has not deleted the tweet. Daniel Kawczynski tweeted that we got nothing from the Marshall plan, when in reality we were the largest recipients, tweet is still there. If Brexit is such a good idea, why do these people have to post these lies?
I don't see hand ringing calls for appeasement,

[Galant]

Personally speaking if i drop dead because the MPs wanting to leave without a WA can't keep the medication I'm on in stock then I'd probably be doing much more than just wondering what an imaginary place looks like, not that I'd be doing much as I'd be dead but you get what i mean.

I also don't see how he, or anyone in the EU, would be complicit in the UK leaving without a WA. I know it's been said before but, the UK has chosen to leave, the UK decided to trigger A50 when it did, and the UK has so far rejected the WA, this is the UK's doing and to suggest it's not is like saying a suicide bomber was made to blow himself up.

The medication story is simply not true. Not sure why you keep mentioning it.

Back to the point though, Tusk and chums are complicit in something if with their help a certain end result is reached. Let's take your medication scenario. Lets's assume it's 100% true and that the UK would have no access to meds and people were likely going to die. If Tusk and the EU see that as a deplorable result but that it's a result they are heading towards, they have a moral obligation to avoid it - just as they are suggesting that the UK leaders have a moral obligation to avoid it. If they didn't avoid it, but remained unmoved, then the result is on them as well as on the UK leaders. It's pretty straightforward.

So in reality, if he sees the result of Brexit as immoral, worthy of condemnation, but doesn't do anything to avoid inflicting it on UK citizens, then that's on him, at least to some extent.

This isn't something he's observing, it's something he's participating in.

[opel80uk]

Except that the UK is no longer in the EEC because that no longer exists. Had there been a referendum on whether the UK should support the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties that brought about that (unacceptable to many) transformation then perhaps the current debacle would not exist.

The EU bureaucracy treats the citizens of the EU countries with contempt whenever it doesn't get its own way. The EU can compromise on the deal if the risk of a no-deal is as important to them as they claim.

The hand-wringing call for appeasement to the EU is demeaning to the UK.

It doesn't matter that the EEC doesn't exist anymore. An awful lot of people of a certain generation done exponentially well out of the UK being members of the EU, and now a lot of those same people want to pull up the drawbridge for the next generation, knowing full well that they won't be the ones to feel the effect of the economic shock of leaving the EU, because their nests are already feathered. And when a company like Nissan makes it perfectly clear that the Brexit vote is a having real & immediate impact on the UK economy, there's hardly a peep out of Leavers anywhere. Why? Because they believe that's a price worth paying. It's utter selfishness.

The EU has compromised, but you know this already. What you actually mean is the EU should keep compromising until the UK Parliament (who incidentally doesn't know what it wants either) is happy with the deal, even if those compromises are detrimental to the whole EU project.

And the idea that this is handwringing appeasement to the EU is, IMO, nonsense. Most remainers I know couldn't care less about the EU, it's the UK they are worried about. The UK is a small country in a world dominated by geopolitical blocs, and the Empire is gone and is not coming back. This so called 'appeasement' is not what's demeaning the UK. What is demeaning is the way Leavers have presented virtually no solutions to a problem they created. And people who voted leave are often just as bad. Saracen bemoans the fact that David Davis was sidelined in the negotiating process, but only yesterday we read what his thoughts are on getting a deal; Wait until the 11th hour, and the EU will blink. If that's his plan, then rather than bemoaning the fact he was sidelined, people should be asking what he was doing there in the first place. It's all so laughable.

[peterb]

.

The EU has compromised, but you know this already. What you actually mean is the EU should keep compromising until the UK Parliament (who incidentally doesn't know what it wants either) is happy with the deal, even if those compromises are detrimental to the whole EU project.

I really don't give a toss about the European Project - thats for the Brussels Bureaucracy to decide - not for us to compromise to keep their project going. And the UK isn't the only country that is unhappy with the way things are, so as much of the EU posturing is to deter the others.

[Smudger]

Just saying something isn't true doesn't make it not true. Please provide some sort of argument as to why.

Your argument is basically "if you don't do what I want you to do, I'm going to hold my breath until I die". The government is being childish and boorish about the whole approach, and quite rightly the EU isn't giving in. And pay attention to the language, he said 'for those who promoted brexit without a plan to go through safely' a lot of people are getting offended when he is talking about a very small bunch of people who all want someone else to do the planning.

[opel80uk]

I really don't give a toss about the European Project - thats for the Brussels Bureaucracy to decide - not for us to compromise to keep their project going.

I know you don't give a toss about the EU project, but presumably you understand the EU do? And if the UK wants some of the benefits that those in the EU get, then unfortunately the UK will have to compromise, just the same as those countries within the EU have, and also those like Norway and indeed Canada have who are not in the EU, but have extensive deals with them have. But it's actually as I said in my first post; there are those who are willing to sell the next generation down the economic river with a no deal just to satisfy their own selfish wants. And that's a perfectly fine position to hold, but let's not pretend it's something else, or someone else's fault.

[peterb]

I know you don't give a toss about the EU project, but presumably you understand the EU do? And if the UK wants some of the benefits that those in the EU get, then unfortunately the UK will have to compromise, just the same as those countries within the EU have, and also those like Norway and indeed Canada have who are not in the EU, but have extensive deals with them have. But it's actually as I said in my first post; there are those who are willing to sell the next generation down the economic river with a no deal just to satisfy their own selfish wants. And that's a perfectly fine position to hold, but let's not pretend it's something else, or someone else's fault.

The UK will have to compromise, if it wants to get those benefits, but not at any price.

[opel80uk]

The UK will have to compromise, if it wants to get those benefits, but not at any price.

Leaving aside any red lines for a moment, what are you personally, happy for the UK to compromise on in regards to Brexit?

[Corky34]

The medication story is simply not true. Not sure why you keep mentioning it.

I don't keep mentioning it, that's the first time I've ever mentioned it to anyone and i know that because i only found out last week that the pharmacy that i use said they can't guarantee that they'll have stock after my next repeat prescription. I'm also not sure why you're basically calling me a liar along with The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, Novartis, Healthcare Distribution Association, the Department for Health and Social Care, and Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

Back to the point though, Tusk and chums are complicit in something if with their help a certain end result is reached. Let's take your medication scenario. Lets's assume it's 100% true and that the UK would have no access to meds and people were likely going to die. If Tusk and the EU see that as a deplorable result but that it's a result they are heading towards, they have a moral obligation to avoid it - just as they are suggesting that the UK leaders have a moral obligation to avoid it. If they didn't avoid it, but remained unmoved, then the result is on them as well as on the UK leaders. It's pretty straightforward.

So in reality, if he sees the result of Brexit as immoral, worthy of condemnation, but doesn't do anything to avoid inflicting it on UK citizens, then that's on him, at least to some extent.

This isn't something he's observing, it's something he's participating in.

He's only participating in it because he's the chief civil servant that's been elected to carry out the wishes of the elected leaders of the 27 other members nations, saying he's participating in it is like saying Jeremy Heywood or Mark Sedwill, who happens to have been elected by absolutely no one and can hold their role indefinitely, participated in the Windrush scandal, Universal Credit, or any other governmental decisions.

He's participating in it as much as you participate in what your boss, if you have a boss, tells you to do.

Additional i didn't say that the UK would have no access to meds, i said if [they] can't keep the medication I'm on in stock, and if i drop dead, and I'm not the only person with concerns about that, of course Mrs May has nothing to worry about as I'm sure she'll be at the head of the queue what with being PM and all that.

EDIT:

I really don't give a toss about the European Project - thats for the Brussels Bureaucracy to decide - not for us to compromise to keep their project going. And the UK isn't the only country that is unhappy with the way things are, so as much of the EU posturing is to deter the others.

I get what you mean but unfortunately in today's world we can't really afford to have the privilege of not giving a toss, as shown when the subprime market in America caused a global financial crisis, if the European Project failed it would be impossible for the UK not to be effected, it would effect the global economy and because we're really close geographically it would effect more than just our economy.

[Saracen999]

I don't keep mentioning it, that's the first time I've ever mentioned it to anyone and i know that because i only found out last week that the pharmacy that i use said they can't guarantee that they'll have stock after my next repeat prescription. I'm also not sure why you're basically calling me a liar along with The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, Novartis, Healthcare Distribution Association, the Department for Health and Social Care, and Health Secretary Matt Hancock.



He's only participating in it because he's the chief civil servant that's been elected to carry out the wishes of the elected leaders of the 27 other members nations, saying he's participating in it is like saying Jeremy Heywood or Mark Sedwill, who happens to have been elected by absolutely no one and can hold their role indefinitely, participated in the Windrush scandal, Universal Credit, or any other governmental decisions.

He's participating in it as much as you participate in what your boss, if you have a boss, tells you to do.

Additional i didn't say that the UK would have no access to meds, i said if [they] can't keep the medication I'm on in stock, and if i drop dead, and I'm not the only person with concerns about that, of course Mrs May has nothing to worry about as I'm sure she'll be at the head of the queue what with being PM and all that.

EDIT:

I get what you mean but unfortunately in today's world we can't really afford to have the privilege of not giving a toss, as shown when the subprime market in America caused a global financial crisis, if the European Project failed it would be impossible for the UK not to be effected, it would effect the global economy and because we're really close geographically it would effect more than just our economy.

We will be affected by what happens in tne EU, just as we are affected by what happens in China, but that doesn't mean being part of China is a desirable option. And post-Brexit, we will have about as much say about what happens in the EU, as we currently do in what happens in China.

In either case, we can still trade with the EU, and with China, just as an outside, independent nation does, like .... oh, most of the world.