Is the writing on the wall for the European Union

We used to work for a guy (one of the managers of the estates dept for a major UK bank) who used to fek stuff up (mainly, lack of planning and foresight of projects), cover his tracks, then loudly and theatrically bowl in and "sort" the issue. To great fanfare, self-aggrandisement, and praise from those he'd intentionally kept in the dark.
Kept him is a cushy role for years.(y)

i think we've all got one of them at work.
 
Sponsored Links
can confirm that if there are problems that we believe are disproportionate, we will have no hesitation in invoking article 16."
Indeed..He announced it..Did not go sneaking off doing it without a chat with the involved countries!.
 
Sponsored Links
Well how did you think you know about the EUs article 16 threat?

Did come through the toaster.
"Not only did the EU drive a bus over Southern Ireland.They reversed the bus and had another go"Not Good.
 
A mistake is leaving the oven on, or forgetting to post something.

Making a conscious decision to, then actually triggering Article 16, is like inviting a pyromaniac to house - sit, swapping all of the food in the cupboard for Jerry cans of petrol, and buying them a Zippo to keep them amused because you've had the electric cut off.....
It wasn't a conscious decision, it was "someone or some group in the Trade department", "someone ", "somebody, I don't know who".
We've already been through this.
Logically, who ever triggered the Article 16 didn't think that the currently the EU has no vaccines to be smuggled. So they weren't too bright.

There is an alternative scenario to consider: "We are prepared to get really tough on this issue, and this is how far we are prepared to go, do you want to go there?"
 
It wasn't a conscious decision, it was "someone or some group in the Trade department", "someone ", "somebody, I don't know who".


Of course it was a conscious decision, by whoever it was, or whichever group it was.
Someone or some others thought about it, and decided it.

To argue otherwise is daft.
 
Of course it was a conscious decision, by whoever it was, or whichever group it was.
Someone or some others thought about it, and decided it.

To argue otherwise is daft.
I meant it wasn't a conscious decision by EU Commission.
It was a conscious decision by some unnamed individual in the Trade Department, which was quickly over-ridden by the Commission.
I suspect that any such magnitude of decision-making has been removed from the offending party.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top