this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3363 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Keir Starmer wants to sign a new agreement with the EU — one which would smooth disruption to trade, solve the Northern Ireland border issue, and make life simpler for farmers, all in one go.

But there’s a catch.

EU officials have told POLITICO that Brussels would be interested in such a deal — known as a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement — only if London was willing to accept European Court of Justice (ECJ) oversight.

“There is no doubt in our mind” that ECJ oversight would be a “prerequisite” for such an agreement, said a senior EU official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the matter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

If the move would be of interest to the EU, then unless they are completely politically inept, can these officials not see how saying it would require ECJ oversight before an election risks it being eliminated from Labour policy?

It gives a free attack point for the Tories and couldn't be a bigger face palm - for anyone actually interested in it, of course.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t matter. The EU pointedly does not care about how idiotic UK politics have gotten. They’re saying “we can make it suck less for you, but it’s not free, and this is the price”.

The EU can and will hold out indefinitely on this.

The UK is hemorrhaging tens of billions of pounds, and it’s only set to accelerate. They’re not really a financial center anymore. No single market. No Schengen. None of the huge benefits of being in the EU.

But, you know, keep machine gunning your own foot, I guess. That’ll show those silly euros. Or something.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like you took my comment to be a critique of the EU's position, which is not what I was trying to say at all.

I presume that such an agreement would be in the EUs interest - hence the expression of such. Public clarification at this stage of the 'cost'- as you put it - is a great way to take it off the official policy booklet. Which doesn't make sense to me.

I am aware that UK politics is stupid. I live here.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I apologize - I know I sometimes come across a bit pugilistic when I don’t actually intend to. It’s more that I am deeply frustrated by the situation, even as an outside observer.

For what it’s worth, I empathize with you on how frustrating our political ”leaders” often are. Feels like they’re pretty much all aggressively competing for the Upper Class Twit of the Year award on both sides of the pond :(