Lurker > JE19426

Why does it have to be corbyn?

Put it this way, if someone was suggesting putting Trump temporarily in charge of business regulations and his only job was to schedule a meeting, would you trust him?

Where da fuck is SABO

Make it anyone else. Just not him.

why did the UK ever join in the first place.

Bankrupt yourself and your empire to successfully stop and defeat the germans so they can decide your policies for the next 100 years

Corbyn is the worst possible conclusion, and that includes hard Brexit.

Accelerator. He got like 4 in general by episode 22. His arc was better than the rest so far.

I realize this is his schtick to not give a source but the OP says Apple wants to buy Sony Pictures.

PS should be fine then.

The Apple buyout is far from confirmed as they may want to purchase Lionsgate, A24 or CBS Viacom and it isn't confirmed if they want to buy just Sony Pictures or ALL of Sony which includes their Music Division and Playstation

2 episodes is his whole arc? What garbage.

A lot of people absolutely despise motion controls, especially in shooters where precision is key. Why waste valuable development time making motion controls work properly if only 5-10% of players will ever use them?

i dunno how is this even gonna be enforced, but good

whut.

none

im a mature adult so i dont play with childrens toys anymore

Have you not been paying attention?

The entire point of the Benn Bill is to prevent leaving on WTO terms, to remove it as a possibility in negotiation.

The option of Article 24 allows to buffer other shocks and then [hopefully] the children can gather round a table and try to sort out a trade deal.

If it had been settled that the country would leave on WTO terms, then it gives business some notice of what is likely to happen.

That doesn't surprise me. The agreement favours the EU. It makes more provision to fund and support existing EU institutions while giving cursory mention to what may or may not be UK interests.

WTO went on the table with Boris becoming PM.

The money to the EU was part of the negotiation. Not paying it could indeed make future negotiations more difficult.

You're not in favour of the UK negotiating from a stronger position, or renegotiating its current terms to improve them and either pay less, or get more back, to gain judicial exemption or even shift to the Norway arrangement - but are still somehow neutral?

If you are in favour of the EU, just say it. If you choose the EU over the UK, then just say it. Don't try to pretend other wise though.

You're asking for evidence of something that isn't likely to be considered unless leaving on WTO terms is the default.

Should Parliament have voted to remove the UK's best negotiation leverage [leaving without a deal and denying the EU the billions they want], or ought negotiation have been biased in the EU's favour from the beginning?

a.k.a. are you more loyal to the EU, or the UK?

Hypothetically, how do you propose that the UK gains better terms from the EU - were they to stay in the EU? As in, paying in less and getting back more?

a.k.a. do you even want the UK to have a favourable position?

You're doing this deliberately now aren't you?

The EU would be more inclined to agree to the invocation of Article 24 in the case of a WTO exit, if it prevents damage to the German and French, and by extension the Eurozone's economies - avoiding recession and giving breathing room to then carry out trade negotiations - of which the divorce bill would likely be a prerequisite and UK fishing grounds a piece of leverage.

Are you from the UK?

Are you Scottish?

We've had three years of what has become known as "Project Fear" where there has been such a hysteria whipped up over how initially the world may as well be ending by the UK leaving the EU, then how not only would the world be ending - but that super-aids infected flying badgers will be a portent of dooooooom at the prospect of the UK leaving without a deal.

The very thought of saying: "we're leaving, that's what was voted for, we'll respect it, [even if we disagree] let's see what we can do and make the best of the opportunities available" doesn't seem to have entered their [the media and political class'] minds.

Is it not possible to aspire to something better than giving the EU billions and cravenly slurring out "Thank you master..."

The EU aren't going to offer/just give it to the UK as it would mean them voluntarily surrendering the money they want for nothing in return. There has been weakening on the position of the backstop however, with the potential to have that continue with other areas, [including the potential invocation of Article 24] it would require that the UK's negotiations weren't crippled by Labour's actions however.

What is wrong with you all?? You'd think the world was ending at the prospect of leaving the EU, that everyone's ass will explode with super-aids and that Desperate Housewives is going to get a remake. Why are you all so scared and miserable? We had the "great recession" and we got through that, we had the '70s and got through that. We had the '50s and somehow got through that as well. Go further back and you have two world wars. We got through them also. What makes you think that we'll be unable to get through leaving the apron strings of Nanny-EU?

That 17% approval rating isn't going to be done any good if Congress is presented as obstructionist to the possible increase in trade and income for the US' agricultural sector.

If the EU were to concede that there are options to smooth processes, even in the event of a WTO exit, it weakens their position - they're not going to do that unless they have to. So no, I cannot give you evidence of the EU deliberately weakening their own negotiating position, because the EU are not stupid.

https://twitter.com/rpgfancom/status/1169419900496031745?s=19

The Commonwealth isn't a threat to the EU as such, but with the current administration in the US not being - shall we say, fond of the EU? It works out better for the US if the EU antagonises the UK.

Johnson became PM, the leverage went back on the table and the EU started to blink. There was the potential for a renegotiation for a deal that could, maybe have gotten through the commons, but then Labour shit the bed and are now trying to remove the UK's leverage, which brings the situation back to something akin to the position that May was trying to negotiate from.

The Commission would only want Article 24 invoked as a way of maintaining more hassle free trade for German manufacturing and French agriculture in the case of the UK leaving on WTO terms as...

If the UK leaves on WTO terms without Article 24 invoked then it is likely there will be a shock to the EU and UK economies which runs the risk of recession.

Again this keeps going back to money.

Invoking Article 24 is an option to maintain a status quo for a short time while a trade agreement could potentially be agreed. With the threat of recession affecting both the UK and Germany I suspect they'd rather like to avoid it. Being able to have a buffer to still buy and sell things with some level of confidence while the children sit and try to play nicely [trying to negotiate a trade deal] would be desirable no?

If the EU however says: "Why yes! Leave without a deal on WTO terms, don't give us billions, or enact changes and legeslation to support our legal and procedural structures, but we'll still happily go the Article 24 route" would be stupid on their part, the EU are greedy shits, but they aren't stupid - by EU I do mean the commission, not the nations that are part of it.

Article 24 would be a stop gap to act as a way to allow things to continue normally in a [for the EU] worst case scenario, for them to continue trading normally which would be for the desired effect of avoiding recession, Germany doesn't like recessions after all, they're a bit nervous after the whole "Greece" issue. They're not going to offer WTO exit and Artice 24 on a plate though as it's in the UK's interests, not the EU's.

Hang on... there was! It was the threat of leaving on WTO terms, invoking Article 24 to have a window where free-trade without tarrifs exists [essentially a status quo until a permenant trade deal can be agreed] - but hold on again!

What is contradictory about needing money to be able to spend it?

Why would that be silly?

If he tried that, they could always table a no-confidence vote that would almost assuredly pass.

Are you capable of using a phrase other than "lmao"?

The PM sets the cabinet and by extension the government's stance. Boris could have planned to have made policy that everyone rides round on painted elephants, it didn't matter though as he wasn't the PM. The withdrawl agreement was negotiated under May, it was defeated three times in the Commons. Johnson becomes PM, the negotiation and government strategy changes, as well as the ability to pursue it.

Why would those nations leave? They can't afford to. The EU has them by the short and curlies as dependents. That's why it's so fucking terrifying for them that the UK and the net contributions it makes could vanish. The German, Dutch and French tax payers would be footing the bill to support all those other nations - I think there are three, or four other net contribuitors?

The EU wants money. The EU wants the pre-brexit status-quo. That's what the withdrawl agreement provides for them. Once they have that, then they can continue with fiscal, immigration and defence union plans and then the EU gets what it really wants. That Federal European nation.

Johnson hasn't even been PM for six months yet you fool.

If WTO were to remain a valid threat then it pushes the EU to have to consider dropping the backstop entirely - which would be a bitter pill for them, but given what a greedy bunch of shits they are, and if it meant they got the turd withdrawl agreement through the commons then they'd throw Eire under the bus to do it

The shifted from "non non non" to being open to alternatives.

I want them to understand that just as there started to be a crack forming in the EU negotiators when the threat of leaving on WTO terms started to register with them and concessions were likely to be made, that removing that threat of leaving without a deal means there is no reason now for the EU to negotiate - they can get what they want because the cowards in the House of Commons will bend over and take it.

Enough with this anti-democratic shit. Anyone who tries to stall this out so the UK can crash out of the EU needs to be voted out next election (which is soon, as I understand it).

1. Good. Then we agree the reasoning makes zero sense.

2. Semantics.

You're brutalizing a living , thinking, feeling ,growing consciousness until it is lifeless and then sending it to the afterlife.

That's killing.

3. So how come she doesn't send Auron, Meachen, Belgamine etc the moment she meets them?

Name one reason I have ignored.

No my point is Yuna thinking she is the only one who has the right to stop Sin and being so arrogant as to literally murder people who disagree with her and have other options because she's so great (Which was your argument) is entirely out of character and contrived.

Whatever happened to propaganda be called for something truly sinister?

Actually, is there a reason some unsent remain in human form for (seemingly) forever? I thought after a time all unsent would turn into fiends, and it wae just those with strong wills that were able to remain "human" for a time.

That's semantics.

You're brutalizing a living , thinking, feeling ,growing consciousness until it is lifeless and then sending it to the afterlife.

That's killing.

Exactly

I don't ignore it. I just disprove it.

hence why you couldn't even give an example. you just said "there is good reason " Because you know any actual reason you could give is contrived

Yuna being opposed to the cycles doesn't equate to her wanting to kill people.

There's no reason why Yuna would fight or send Yunalesca.

And there's no reason why Yunalesca would fight Yuna.

Sure Yuna thinks up a way to win without Yunalesca (Using magic Yunalesca already did) but she literally gambled with the entire world to do so purely because she thinks she's so great.

They don't go "Quick we must send Mika!"

They go "Quick! We must ask Mika some questions."

Actually them trying to send Yunalesca first (like they did with Lulu's first summoner) would actually be an explanation for Yunalesca attacking you.

But it still wouldn't explain why Yuna would do that.

There's no point where Yuna goes hunting Unsent like a Ghostbuster against their wills just to kill them for the hell of it. They all want to pass on or are direct threats attacking her.

Dona might send at first sight. But Yuna is a good girl. Hence why they have such a big dramatic conversation in the first place

I wouldn't kill someone because they disagreed with on something. I especially woudn't risk dooming the entire world because we disagreed with each other.

Remember that killing Yunalesca ends the cycles forever before they even had a plan of how to stop Sin

That kind of arrogance is waaaaaaaaaay out of character for everyone in the party except arguably Auron who has a beef

Yeah after extended periods of time when they were no longer aiding her and wanted to be sent.

She doesn't even try to send Mika and never attempted to send Yunalesca until after the long conversation and fight.

Do you think Yuna would have tried to send her if Yunalesca hadn't attacked her?

Look at Auron, Belgemine, Meachen.

It's also out of character. It's contrived as hell that Yuna would be arrogant enough to not only make that decision but literally murder in order to do so.

I don't agree with that. It destroys the entie tension and plot if you go "The villain is actually wrong and can't really win"

That's abysmally awful storytelling. The implication is clear that if you die, Seymour will end all life on Spira.

She should be charged with manslaughter and tbh theres probably an argument to be made for murder

How would you react?

Yes but why?

That still doesn't explain why you fight each other.

I feel bad that I dont get the reference

Words have meaning. For example, a troll is someone who is not trying to have a genuine conversation.