Xitter. Pronounced just the way you think.

Is this the “Find out” stage then?

Actions have consequences. Sad people had to figure it out this way.

Been posting to “Europe” since forever. Still only a fraction of users compared to that other site. About 3000 monthly I believe. Driving engagement is harder than it seems.

I’m an American, so it’s maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, I’d personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I don’t think that there is great harm, as things were working all right earlier and that any precedent concerns could be addressed arguing that this is a special case) and if I were in the UK and could act freely, I’d make the concession to the EU to give up the opt-outs if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I think that ultimately, the UK was going to have to give up the opt-outs anyway if staying in the EU…I don’t think that Sweden’s approach of kicking the can down the road repeatedly on monetary union, for example, is going to be sustainable ad infinitum).

Yeah. There are political realities to take into account but there’s a lot to be gained by both sides, so it’ll be a negotiation with a lot of give and take. But the deal that the UK had is gone forever.

Yeah, the existence of the TCA does mean that this is considerably less of a factor than otherwise would be the case, but there are still going to be affected parties – the economic disruption that Brexit would cause was one of the most-prominent arguments in favor of Remain I saw pre-referendum (auto factories using JIT manufacturing will close, vendors doing cross-Channel sales will go under, etc), and this would run through that again.

The TCA is a very bare bones deal. It’s pretty close to a no deal actually. The main problem is that the UK isn’t trading with “the EU” anymore. They’re trading with France, with all the rules that France has for 3rd countries. And with NL, that might have different rules.

Politically, it will be hard for the EU to permit the UK to rejoin with the opt-outs that the UK had. It has denied new members that wanted opt-outs on the grounds that those aren’t being done any more. The EU would need to unanimously vote to add the UK and extend it those opt-outs. And in the UK, the referendum that was close was on being in the EU with those opt-outs, some of which I understand would be politically difficult in the UK to not have. So the very close Leave referendum is perhaps not the best guide to a hypothetical Rejoin referendum, since the latter would probably not have the same state of affairs on offer that the former did.

I don’t think that’s an option. I think it’s a new application and new terms negotiated between the EU and the UK, not “back to how it was”. This will certainly take time to negotiate and to find support for. On both sides.

Economic disruption and the greater political weight of incumbents. Any change in economic environment involves disruption, will cause people to be laid off and businesses to go under. These existing organizations are more organized and speak with a louder voice than the not-yet-extant businesses and job slots who will exist in a post-change environment. It’s one reason why free trade agreements – though normally advantageous to a country as a whole – are hard to get through, as the businesses who will go under and workers who will lose their jobs are organized and very vocal on the matter, whereas the businesses who will be formed as a result of the change and the workers who will be hired do not exist, probably don’t know who they are, and have little effective voice.

Trading with “RoW” is hard while trading within the single market was easy. Rejoining the EU wouldn’t disrupt much other than lowering barriers.

Your other points I pretty much agree with.

My point exactly from a post a few months ago. You have to choose from more immigration, lower living standards, reduced public services or higher taxes.

Why are our politicians so bad at explaining this?

In case of paywall. https://archive.is/zMh0U

In case of paywall. https://archive.is/tIYiD

In case of paywall.

https://archive.is/0nscN

In case of paywall.

https://archive.is/xN51x

Don’t understand all the downvotes. It’s a video about the Draghi report and the problems he raises. I’m not too keen on the presenter, but the facts are good as long as you can separate them from his opinions.

Italy has the Ariete and France the Leclerc. I think there are a few in eastern Europe as well, but that might be modified Russian tanks. Not sure about those, sorry guys.

My point is that it’s far too many. 2 max, and that’s stretching it. If the US can manage with one, so can we.

I mean MBTs. How many do we have in Europe? 5? 6?

The Americans have one. The Abrahams.

I have a mastodon account, but using it feels like shouting into the void so I don’t post much.

My thoughts exactly. Well put.

The “art of the deal” man really didn’t know what he was doing when he undermined NATO. This was the real wake up call to Europe that the US couldn’t be relied upon and that while alliances after fine, we really need to step up our military game, and part of that is to make sure we have our own equipment.

We should work tighter together and reduce waste by focusing on one model of tank, one or two IFV, etc instead of the large number we have now, mainly due to national interests.

I say start building an EU army, but start from the ground and build the whole chain, with focus on EU supplied equipment.

Yeah.

Even if it’s not required, someone should have considered the schadenfreude and PR disaster from something like this happening.

Thanks.

Wasn’t paywalled when I read it.

Clear and concise. Thanks.

The charger is made for the battery, it’s just that the newer batteries have somewhat more capacity. Thanks for all the extra details.