OK, we'll take this slowly:
• The EU is bound by rules that are enshrined in multiple treaties.
• Those rules and underlying treaties form the basis of the negotiating mandate given to the Commission
• The rules cannot be changed without changing the treaties. 
-
-
-
• The treaties are not going to be undone, reframed, altered or supplemented just for the benefit of country that wishes to leave. • To believe that they would is to fundamentally misunderstand the stance of the EU and indeed its purpose.

-
• The purpose of the EU was to create an economic bloc with a degree of political integration in which areas of common interest were codified in such a way as to ensure a stable, level playing field for the benefit of the member nations.

-
• We won't be a member nation but an outside 'third nation', therefore it makes little sense to compromise that stability for 'outsiders', especially outsiders who appear determined to destroy the institution. It's not difficult to understand if you think about it.

-
Absolutely wonderful set of tweets Mr Maquisard!!! I don't think Julia is capable of understand it all tho.pic.twitter.com/xPztkzk7J5
-
Thank you. The tweet image by JHB in your tweet is indicative of her limited grasp of history or international politics. The re-united Germany was specifically forbidden from expanding its military as the 'price' for the '2+4' agreement.

-
In fact, it was forced to reduce the size of its armed forces by the combined resistance of Thatcher, Mitterrand and Gorbachev. Those restrictions only really disappeared with the development of the (entirely irrational and arbitrary) '2%' rule by NATO in 2014.

-
I know that, in Julia's monochrome world, Germany should just have turned a tap on its military budget and gone down to the local arms hypermarket and blown a couple of billion on the latest ways of killing people.

- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
1. UK not in Euro 2. UK not in Schengen region 3. UK not member of ECB 4. +/- 4bn rebate 5. Distances in miles 6. Northern Ireland What else do you not understand? Why do you insist in displaying your ignorance publicly? You make yourself look really stupid.
-
Which of those do you think I didn’t know? And which of those has got anything to do with Brexit negotiations?
-
Quite probably none of them. Where did you say ANYTHING about Brexit negotiations? Show me! Typical Brexshitter, change the argument when you lose.pic.twitter.com/6ZhK2pzPFL
-
Be kind, Julia was under the misguided impression that the EU needed us more than we needed them and therefore we were getting the exact same benefits. She wanted the “cake and eat it” Brexit that she believed in.



-
She is a remarkably stupid person.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Normally ignore this one's comments but this is too rich. Of course the EU haven't made concessions. The stronger party in a negotiation, holding all the cards rarely does. This is business.
-
“This one”.
-
I should have said "this person". Apologies for my poor manners.
-
No need to apologise - she can give it out but can't take it
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Imagine you had a market of 27 countries, and you were negotiating against 1 country, a sixth of your GDP and populations size, which due to basic geography/economics, needed to compete in your region of the world... How much would you feel you needed to concede?
-
The EU is a rules based organisation. From the start it has said it is unwilling to make the UK a special case regarding those rules. However, it had a menu of options, from full EEA membership to a trade deal. Mrs May's red lines make many of those options impossible
-
They're not only Mrs May's red lines - lest we forget.
-
No, she owns them in particular the insistence of no ECJ involvement which is a result of her time at the Home Office and effectively excludes the UK from Euratom, the ECA and the EMA etc.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.