Coming week will be important for Brexit negotiation: EU's Barnier

[webfact]

Coming week will be important for Brexit negotiation: EU's Barnier

 

FILE PHOTO - European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier takes part in the European Commission's weekly college meeting in Brussels, Belgium, April 10, 2019. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

PARIS (Reuters) - The outcome of talks between British Prime Minister Theresa May's government and the opposition Labour Party to break the deadlock over Britain's exit from the European Union could be known in the coming week, European Union's chief negotiator said on Sunday.

 

"This week will be very important. We will have the results of negotiations between the Labour Party and the Theresa May's government. Are these talks going to yield something?," Michel Barnier said on LCI television.

 

A business spokeswoman for the Labour party said earlier on Sunday that the talks have been productive but the government needed to move on its red lines.

 

Barnier said the talks between the Labour Party and the British government do not call into question the 600-page withdrawal deal that was negotiated between the bloc and the British government.

 

"The two parties agree that the deal we have is the only one possible... the deal we have reached is non-negotiable."

 

"Mrs. May agrees, so too (Labour Party leader) Jeremy Corbyn. What we could negotiate and improve, is the political declaration that defines our future relationship with Britain," Barnier said.

 

Asked if voters in Britain will take part in the upcoming EU-wide parliamentary elections at the end of May, Barnier said yes, if no agreement is reached before the elections.

 

"Legally every EU member state, which is the case of Britain until they leave, must organise elections, if only to protect the rights of citizens, including Europeans who have the right to vote in London," Barnier said.

 

"I understand that there is a certain incomprehension, but it is the law, it is the European treaty that applies," he said, adding that if Britain leaves on Oct. 31 as planned, its MEPs will leave the European parliament too.

 

(Reporting by Bate Felix and Julie Carriat; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-29

[Topdoc]

The problem for you Mr. Barnier is that the revolution has already occurred in the minds of the people

[damascase]

1 hour ago, Topdoc said:

The problem for you Mr. Barnier is that the revolution has already occurred in the minds of the people

The UK has many more problems than the EU/Barnier has........

Edited April 29, 2019 by damascase

[evadgib]

We want OUT and with luck may already have left....

And in the meantime....

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by evadgib

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

"The two parties agree that the deal we have is the only one possible... the deal we have reached is non-negotiable."

Well done, so tell EU if it's non-negotiable, UK will just leave.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

We want OUT and with luck may already have left....

And in the meantime....

 

This happens when you give uneducated imbeciles airtime: they make a fool of themselves for the whole world to watch, whether it’s the poor lady on TV or the poor guy reposting her in the TV forum. Sure, it’s entertaining like those little clips of drunkards puking all over themselves people send you in WhatsApp. But then it’s also sad that no one protects those poor people from ridiculing themselves live on air. 

 

The problem is their limited intellect doesn’t allow them to notice that themselves. Even a fairly intelligent person knows when he better shuts up because something is not his domain. Yet people who probably work a supermarket shift teach us about international law. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Well done, so tell EU if it's non-negotiable, UK will just leave.

Wasn’t the “no deal is better than a bad deal” bluff laughed at long time ago already?

[damascase]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Well done, so tell EU if it's non-negotiable, UK will just leave.

‘Leave’ is something that the UK could have done at the end of last month, but somehow decided not to do it......

Edited April 29, 2019 by damascase
Typo

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Wasn’t the “no deal is better than a bad deal” bluff laughed at long time ago already?

No, it was obviously true.

 

Unfortunately May preferred to eventually change this to 'a very bad deal is better than no deal'......

[welovesundaysatspace]

(Double post, can be deleted)

Edited April 29, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[welovesundaysatspace]

31 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

No, it was obviously true.

 

Unfortunately May preferred to eventually change this to 'a very bad deal is better than no deal'......

Now you just have to find someone who would really use shooting yourself in the foot as a threat and actually go through with it. Not even the dabblers Davis or Raab would be so stupid. Typical spoonies drivel that only people who would never have to take responsibility for anything can seriously suggest. 

[tebee]

57 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Wasn’t the “no deal is better than a bad deal” bluff laughed at long time ago already?

 

34 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

No, it was obviously true.

 

Unfortunately May preferred to eventually change this to 'a very bad deal is better than no deal'......

It all depends on what your measuring stick is - economically May's deal is a little better than no deal.

 

I'm not sure what deal could be worse than no deal, it was always an idle threat, it's only strength is that it does more damage to our neighbours too. 

 

All deals will result in some sort of loss of independence, even the WTO imposes external rules on the country. Unless you are advocating the ever so successful North Korean model? 

[sammieuk1]

Another week of a worthless pound then????

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

This happens when you give uneducated imbeciles airtime: they make a fool of themselves for the whole world to watch, whether it’s the poor lady on TV or the poor guy reposting her in the TV forum. Sure, it’s entertaining like those little clips of drunkards puking all over themselves people send you in WhatsApp. But then it’s also sad that no one protects those poor people from ridiculing themselves live on air. 

 

The problem is their limited intellect doesn’t allow them to notice that themselves. Even a fairly intelligent person knows when he better shuts up because something is not his domain. Yet people who probably work a supermarket shift teach us about international law. 

How about Gina Miller who kindly provided the precedent they're relying upon?

Hypocrite!

Edited April 29, 2019 by evadgib

[welovesundaysatspace]

6 minutes ago, evadgib said:

How about Gina Miller who kindly provided the precedent they're relying upon?

Hypocrite!

Gina Miller providing a precedent? LMAO! Like I said: Don’t make yourself look stupid by talking about things you don’t understand. 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

We want OUT and with luck may already have left....

And in the meantime....

 

 

A slight majority % of those who voted wanted out over those who wanted in. 

 

But still Brexiters insist it was a once in a lifetime, never to be challenged, discussed or voted on ever again, decision. 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

23 minutes ago, evadgib said:

How about Gina Miller who kindly provided the precedent they're relying upon?

Hypocrite!

 

For the benefit of us all, can you please explain how the case bought by Gina Miller and the comment made by the lady on the TV show are related?

[evadgib]

<wrong poster>

Edited April 29, 2019 by evadgib

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Now you just have to find someone who would really use shooting yourself in the foot as a threat and actually go through with it. Not even the dabblers Davis or Raab would be so stupid. Typical spoonies drivel that only people who would never have to take responsibility for anything can seriously suggest. 

The constant 'Ficker than us' from your direction is wearing mighty thin. Do you not have the intellect to come up with something original?

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

But still Brexiters insist it was a once in a lifetime, never to be challenged, discussed or voted on ever again, decision. 

You mean until Remain get their result which ain't 'appening.

 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Gina Miller providing a precedent? LMAO! Like I said: Don’t make yourself look stupid by talking about things you don’t understand. 

Yet again falling back on slagging the poster in lieu of offering anything to counter what was actually said?

Edited April 29, 2019 by evadgib

[welovesundaysatspace]

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The constant 'Ficker than us' from your direction is wearing mighty thin. Do you not have the intellect to come up with something original?

No, thanks, I will leave the coming up with something original to the unicorn chasers and castle in the sky builders. I prefer facts and knowledge, even if it bores you and bursts your bubbles. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

This happens when you give uneducated imbeciles airtime: they make a fool of themselves for the whole world to watch, whether it’s the poor lady on TV or the poor guy reposting her in the TV forum. Sure, it’s entertaining like those little clips of drunkards puking all over themselves people send you in WhatsApp. But then it’s also sad that no one protects those poor people from ridiculing themselves live on air. 

 

The problem is their limited intellect doesn’t allow them to notice that themselves. Even a fairly intelligent person knows when he better shuts up because something is not his domain. Yet people who probably work a supermarket shift teach us about international law. 

"uneducated imbeciles

   lips of drunkards puking

      poor people from ridiculing themselves

          limited intellect

              people who probably work a supermarket"

 

Oh to be so superior! 

 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

A slight majority % of those who voted wanted out over those who wanted in. 

 

But still Brexiters insist it was a once in a lifetime, never to be challenged, discussed or voted on ever again, decision. 

 

 

Heavy sigh, I've no doubt that zero brexiteers consider it to be a "once in a lifetime, never to be challenged, discussed or voted on ever again, decision.".

 

That is just remainer 'spin'.....

 

Leavers waited decades for another referendum without much in the way of protest other than joining UKIP - and they're certainly not saying anything that supports your lie.

 

They're just annoyed that the referendum result is going to be ignored by politicians, who are looking for any way out of honouring the referendum result.

[welovesundaysatspace]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

"uneducated imbeciles

   lips of drunkards puking

      poor people from ridiculing themselves

          limited intellect

              people who probably work a supermarket"

 

Oh to be so superior! 

 

If you want to call it superior that’s your choice. I didn’t call it that. 

 

There’s no problem being uneducated or unskilled. In fact, we all have our strengths and weaknesses; there are things we know and understand and others we don’t. It gets problematic when you jump on a stage to talk about something that you very obviously don’t have a clue about, rather than appreciating the fact that this is someone else’s domain. (It gets even more problematic when you decide a major policy change that way.) 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If you want to call it superior that’s your choice. I didn’t call it that. 

 

There’s no problem being uneducated or unskilled. In fact, we all have our strengths and weaknesses; there are things we know and understand and others we don’t. It gets problematic when you jump on a stage to talk about something that you very obviously don’t have a clue about, rather than appreciating the fact that this is someone else’s domain. (It gets even more problematic when you decide a major policy change that way.) 

Her main point was about the referendum result being dishonoured. This was a national referendum and so it was her domain as much as anyone else's.

[welovesundaysatspace]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Her main point was about the referendum result being dishonoured. This was a national referendum and so it was her domain as much as anyone else's.

Her main point was talking international law on TV while she probably doesn’t even have a degree in philosophy. 

[superal]

3 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

This happens when you give uneducated imbeciles airtime: they make a fool of themselves for the whole world to watch, whether it’s the poor lady on TV or the poor guy reposting her in the TV forum. Sure, it’s entertaining like those little clips of drunkards puking all over themselves people send you in WhatsApp. But then it’s also sad that no one protects those poor people from ridiculing themselves live on air. 

 

The problem is their limited intellect doesn’t allow them to notice that themselves. Even a fairly intelligent person knows when he better shuts up because something is not his domain. Yet people who probably work a supermarket shift teach us about international law. 

Regardless of the ladies performance or opinion she was entitled to have her say as " Question Time " is an audience participation debating programme ( in case you did not know ) . She was clearly overcome with nerves and was fighting back her tears but she was a brave lady to try to deliver her message .

Your derogatory and demeaning remarks about her were uncalled for and then you shoot yourself in the foot when quoting the " Whats App drunks puking " . What sort of entertainment are you into ?

BTW people who work in Supermarkets come from all walks of life and education levels . They are earning an honest wage plus you do not know their personal backgrounds but tar them all with the same brush . I suppose you never use a supermarket as it is too low a standard for your aloof presence .

[Loiner]

Her main point was talking international law on TV while she probably doesn’t even have a degree in philosophy. 

Her main points were about the politicians ignoring the people generally and referendum result in particular, followed by the lack of media coverage about the current case by the English Democrats Party.
She doesn’t need a degree in Jack Sh1t to raise that on the TV.

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Her main point was talking international law on TV while she probably doesn’t even have a degree in philosophy. 

No. Her secondary point made mention of a court case, about which she seemed a bit misguided, as do you if you think a degree in philosophy is relevant. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by nauseus
edit