Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

DaniilKharms wrote: »

So you think they will listen more NOW that the UK has essentially stuck the knife in their back than BEFORE when they repeatedly bent over backwards to give the UK special treatment.

Makes a lot of sense.

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's nothing personal, it's business. Getting upset about a business negotiation is self-defeating. I'm sure the EU will listen politely as soon as the Tories have decided what their position is. Then they'll be told the terms. If they flounce, so be it.

Ask yourself this. Why should the EU be generous to a country that has spent decades mocking it and complain about it? A country that has constantly tried to change the rules in order to pander to Little Englanders? How much goodwill do you think Britain has left?

Ask yourself another question. Why shouldn't the EU screw every advantage it can out of an agreement with a country that will soon be a competitor?

Good evening!

Why would the EU seek a good deal with Britain?

It's in their interests to. Much as it is in Britain's interests to seek a good deal.

Offer a terrible deal and I'd encourage Davis to tell them where to go. Britain is looking for a good deal for all involved. If one isn't forthcoming then of course they should be planning for the alternative.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

DaniilKharms

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Not even close to what happened.

The alternative arrangement was simply more of the delusional nonsense the UK has been demanding - AND GETTING - for years.

NOW, that they've chosen to allow bigots and racists set their countries future they won't be getting these special sweeteners anymore, nor should they.

Britain won't be in any position to "not accept" anything, but will instead - due to their arrogance and incompetence - probably drive the economy off a cliff.

And - like so many say about the Trump voters - the British will get what they deserve.

BTW: not giving the UK a special deal isn't punitive. It's fair. The fact that you think something beyond normal is normal kind of illustrates how out of touch many on your side of things are.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Why would the EU seek a good deal with Britain?

It's in their interests to. Much as it is in Britain's interests to seek a good deal.

Offer a terrible deal and I'd encourage Davis to tell them where to go. Britain is looking for a good deal for all involved. If one isn't forthcoming then of course they should be planning for the alternative.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No. What they should be doing is begging the EU for a few trinkets to sell to the natives as they, after mature reflection, convince the natives that staying in the EU is the best plan. But jingoism will 'win' the day.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

How exactly is one supposed to remember things that didn't happen?

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. What they should be doing is begging the EU for a few trinkets to sell to the natives as they, after mature reflection, convince the natives that staying in the EU is the best plan. But jingoism will 'win' the day.

Good evening!

If they go that route then I would say leaving regardless is the best option. I wouldn't want to be associated to a bloc like that.

I think however there'll be a more reasonable arrangement. I don't think the EU are as delusional as you point them out to be.

Julia Wailing Pedal: February 2016

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If they go that route then I would say leaving regardless is the best option. I wouldn't want to be associated to a bloc like that.

I think however there'll be a more reasonable arrangement. I don't think the EU are as delusional as you point them out to be.

Julia Wailing Pedal: February 2016

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Hmmm. So you'd advise Britain to flounce because the EU isn't being nice?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

If they go that route then I would say leaving regardless is the best option. I wouldn't want to be associated to a bloc like that.

I think however there'll be a more reasonable arrangement. I don't think the EU are as delusional as you point them out to be.

How much should the EU accommodate the UK in getting a favourable deal though? After April 2019 the EU and UK will be competing for trade with other countries. Do you think it will help us here in Ireland if the UK gets a great FTA with the EU and is able to strike FTA deals with other countries that comes at the expense of us here?

I think you will want the UK to fight for every great deal out there, whether this comes at the expense of others or not, right?

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

That's how negotiations with all major economic players work. When "Team USA" walk in the room, they are there to maximise the deal they can get for the USA; they are not going to throw any part of the US economy under a bus so that the UK's Brexit politicians can have an easy win.

Good evening!

Please read the post. The claim was that the EU will not consider the UK's position at all in the negotiations.

That isn't what seems to have happened with Canada interestingly enough.

If that is the EU's genuine outlook towards Britain I would argue that the UK should say adiós, auf wiedersehen and au revoir out of sheer principle!

Of course that's just tripe. No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all. I couldn't state that any more clearly. It's not good for either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First up, about "No access to the City and a complete reduction in EU trade is not in the EU's interest at all", that's a major claim. The EU can just as easily route its financial trade through an EU financial market or even New York as through London. The EU would be no worse off doing so than it would be routing it through a non-EU UK. Nor is anyone talking about a "complete reduction", as tariff barriers don't cause that, rather they reduce trade across them and/or re-route trade to avoid them.

Lastly, to point out the obvious, no one in the EU has to care whether the UK will say Adios or not, since they are adios-ing anyway, so who cares if they're not happy?

Bushmanpm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

It's nothing personal, it's business. Getting upset about a business negotiation is self-defeating. I'm sure the EU will listen politely as soon as the Tories have decided what their position is. Then they'll be told the terms. If they flounce, so be it.

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most: the fact that the current UK Government is the Conservatives? Corbyn is on record as saying he would have supported Brexit as that's what the referendum decided. Or is it because the UK will be free of all the EU constraints? Ireland as well as the other 26 can trigger A50 as well if they want. Or is it the 12.3 billion euro black hole the UK will leave? Not only will it mean no more freebies with other peoples money but they will also have to pay more in!

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Ask yourself this. Why should the EU be generous to a country that has spent decades mocking it and complain about it? A country that has constantly tried to change the rules in order to pander to Little Englanders? How much goodwill do you think Britain has left?

Complaining about it? As opposed to bending over and taking whatever the EU dishes out? They're certainly not complaining about the UK being quite a large net contributor for all those years! Little Englanders or free thinkers objective enough to look behind "the curtain of the wizard of oz"?
NOBODY needs the EU (except the EU's masses of staff) the EC would be better and the EEC would be even better than that. Some form of international cooperation makes sense but the EU has just bloated itself with its own self importance, self interest and self serving, all of which has been made able by people who like being told what to do.

UsedToWait

I know I'll get banned for this, but would you ever give over with the 'Good evening' 'Much thanks' superfluousness.

We get it.
You're English.

DaniilKharms

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most: the fact that the current UK Government is the Conservatives? Corbyn is on record as saying he would have supported Brexit as that's what the referendum decided. Or is it because the UK will be free of all the EU constraints? Ireland as well as the other 26 can trigger A50 as well if they want. Or is it the 12.3 billion euro black hole the UK will leave? Not only will it mean no more freebies with other peoples money but they will also have to pay more in!



Complaining about it? As opposed to bending over and taking whatever the EU dishes out? They're certainly not complaining about the UK being quite a large net contributor for all those years! Little Englanders or free thinkers objective enough to look behind "the curtain of the wizard of oz"?
NOBODY needs the EU (except the EU's masses of staff) the EC would be better and the EEC would be even better than that. Some form of international cooperation makes sense but the EU has just bloated itself with its own self importance, self interest and self serving, all of which has been made able by people who like being told what to do.

Sure what's not to like about a bunch of racists and bigots voting for an idea that'll kill thousands of jobs in our country and strip untold millions from our budget?

Bushmanpm

DaniilKharms wrote:

Sure what's not to like about a bunch of racists and bigots voting for an idea that'll kill thousands of jobs in our country and strip untold millions from our budget?

So all 17 million are fascists and bigots?
Hahahahahahahaha, bit of an all sweeping generalisation there. How about people who want to support their own country's various industries? Or people who want their own courts having the final say in legal matters in their own country? Or people who are sick and tired of paying taxes AND watching their country's debt and deficit rise so as to pay for other countries infrastructure or prop up other countrys utter joke of an economy?
Yes, immigration is a factor, and free movement in and of itself is wrong, especially when generous welfare is available. CONTROLLED immigration makes far more sense: get in those you want and need, on your terms, not a free for all that you have no control over.
And why are you so sure it will cost THOUSANDS of Irish jobs?

Professor Moriarty

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most:

It's because of the damage that Brexit will do to the Irish economy and to the EU. It's a pity that the ordinary Brit will suffer but that's their own look out. They chose to believe the lies.

the fact that the current UK Government is the Conservatives?

I don't like the Little Englander wing of the Tory party and I don't like what they stand for.

Corbyn is on record as saying he would have supported Brexit as that's what the referendum decided.

Corbyn is an idealist. Better than May but blinded by ideology.

Or is it because the UK will be free of all the EU constraints?

No.

Ireland as well as the other 26 can trigger A50 as well if they want. Or is it the 12.3 billion euro black hole the UK will leave? Not only will it mean no more freebies with other peoples money but they will also have to pay more in!

Ireland isn't that stupid. And has been repeatedly pointed out, it isn't anywhere near 12 billion and it's not a big deal.

Complaining about it? As opposed to bending over and taking whatever the EU dishes out? They're certainly not complaining about the UK being quite a large net contributor for all those years! Little Englanders or free thinkers objective enough to look behind "the curtain of the wizard of oz"?

Well, Britain knows where the door is. Nobody is stopping it leaving. Why doesn't it just go?

NOBODY needs the EU (except the EU's masses of staff) the EC would be better and the EEC would be even better than that. Some form of international cooperation makes sense but the EU has just bloated itself with its own self importance, self interest and self serving, all of which has been made able by people who like being told what to do

If you knew anything at all about Ireland you would know how beneficial the EU has been for Ireland.

DaniilKharms

Bushmanpm wrote: »

So all 17 million are fascists and bigots?
Hahahahahahahaha, bit of an all sweeping generalisation there. How about people who want to support their own country's various industries? Or people who want their own courts having the final say in legal matters in their own country? Or people who are sick and tired of paying taxes AND watching their country's debt and deficit rise so as to pay for other countries infrastructure or prop up other countrys utter joke of an economy?
Yes, immigration is a factor, and free movement in and of itself is wrong, especially when generous welfare is available. CONTROLLED immigration makes far more sense: get in those you want and need, on your terms, not a free for all that you have no control over.
And why are you so sure it will cost THOUSANDS of Irish jobs?

1 in 3 UK citizens are self-described racists. The UK has 60K hate crimes a year.

The Brexit campaign featured billboards of scary looking refugees, implying that you could keep "them" out if you voted for Brexit, and the the NHS would get more money if it weren't for refugees.

You can say that that means something else, that's fine, and we'll agree to disagree.

And every single estimate made says it will costs thousands of jobs.

A government report says a hard Brexit would cost tens of thousands of Irish jobs

https://fora.ie/brexit-hard-could-cost-irish-jobs-2-3067969-Nov2016/

Brexit could cost Ireland 40,000 jobs, says Central Bank

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-could-cost-ireland-40-000-jobs-says-central-bank-1.3071259

How a hard Brexit could cost Ireland 49,000 jobs and €200m a year
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/how-a-hard-brexit-could-cost-ireland-49000-jobs-and-200m-a-year-35853844.html

Oh and hey:

Brexit likely to cost Irish Government €3.2bn
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/brexit-likely-to-cost-irish-government-32bn-406956.html

Hard Brexit could add €20bn to national debt
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0119/846176-hard-brexit-could-cost-irish-economy-20-billion/

And guess what, that money is going to hurt schools and hospitals and workers.

Should I be overjoyed?

First Up

Bushmanpm wrote:

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most:

That's easy to answer;

Stupidity.

Water John

So this, Legatum Institute, is doing a lot of the thinking for the UK negotiators.
This is news to me, but then some here are clued in a lot more than me. They seem to have a bit of a daft utopia plan.

'The main idea of the institute, though, seems to be the creation of a “prosperity zone” between the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, eventually extended to the US, Canada and Mexico.'

The carrot they are holding out, (excusing the pun) is the feeding of the UK population in return for financial services.

Good analysis here by Miriam Conzalez Durantez, a UK citizen who has negotiated on behalf on the EU before.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/18/brexit-british-business-leaders-legatum-eu

Brexiteers, don't get apoplexy, but she is also known as Mrs. Clegg.

Fratton Fred

DaniilKharms wrote: »

1 in 3 UK citizens are self-described racists.

I'd love to see you back that one up.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

lol, oh dear!

Let's have a more accurate depiction. On June 23rd the UK decided to leave the European Union and seek a more appropriate relationship to it which is both in Britain's interests and Europe's interests.

Let's also remember that David Cameron went to Brussels to seek an alternative membership arrangement with the European Union on which the UK could fight the referendum. The European Union refused to give him the arrangement he sought.

This is part of the reason why Brexit won. The prime minister of Malta acknowledged this recently.

This is a less emotive and more accurate assessment of what happened.

If the EU go for a highly punitive option - I'd say leave on WTO terms. They need to understand that Britain won't accept a punitive arrangement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

WTO terms would be a complete disaster for the UK's service dominated economy. You do know that WTO terms don't cover services?

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd love to see you back that one up.

Would you?

How about this, if I can back it up will you not post for 24 hours?

That would be my price, as you have google and the data is wildly easy to find, not vaguely controversial, and has been covered by every major media outlet repeatedly.

Bushmanpm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

I don't like the Little Englander wing of the Tory party and I don't like what they stand for.

Yeah, someone with an opinion, standing up for THEIR country (in their opinion)
Down with that sort of thing!

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Corbyn is an idealist. Better than May but blinded by ideology.

Well thems the choices with FPTP democray: May or Corbyn

Professor Moriarty wrote:

No.

Really? What is it then?

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Ireland isn't that stupid. And has been repeatedly pointed out, it isn't anywhere near 12 billion and it's not a big deal.

Britain's contribution is approximately 18 billion Sterling minus roughly 40% rebate, converted to Euros makes around 12.312 billion Euros at today's rate of 1-1.14. "Not a big deal"? Who are you kidding? Put that in the context of Ireland getting a 12bn windfall. Every year! Wouldn't exactly hurt Irish infrastructure! Wrong again, keep trying.

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Well, Britain knows where the door is. Nobody is stopping it leaving. Why doesn't it just go?

Er, sorry to point out the blindingly obvious but isn't that exactly what the negotiations are working towards?

Professor Moriarty wrote:

If you knew anything at all about Ireland you would know how beneficial the EU has been for Ireland.

[/quote]

...with other (TAX PAYERS!) money, some of which would have come from the UK, so it looks a little like a spoilt brat spitting out its dummy when mummy takes its toys away.

Fratton Fred

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Would you?

How about this, if I can back it up will you not post for 24 hours?

That would be my price, as you have google and the data is wildly easy to find, not vaguely controversial, and has been covered by every major media outlet repeatedly.

How about you just stop playing childish games, follow the charter and support accusations that you make?

Bushmanpm

DaniilKharms wrote:

1 in 3 UK citizens are self-described racists. The UK has 60K hate crimes a year.

I find those figures rather dubious to put it mildly (you're really saying there 22 million rascists in Britain?) but let's work on them. A population of approximately 65 million minus roughly 10% BME would give a total of one hate crime per year per one thousand people. Then have a look at all what's encompassed as a hate crime. The Travellers seem to get it worse than that here on boards!

DaniilKharms wrote:

The Brexit campaign featured billboards of scary looking refugees, implying that you could keep "them" out if you voted for Brexit, and the the NHS would get more money if it weren't for refugees.

The two are not mutually exclusive, that's just grasping at straws!

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How about you just stop playing childish games, follow the charter and support accusations that you make?

The charter says I have to google things for you?

What a funny thing.

So you're happy to insinuate that it's not true - an accusation you won't back up ironically - but demand I do the work for you?

Since you're too feeble to figure out a google search:

Racism 'on the rise' in UK with 1 in 3 people admitting prejudice

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racism-on-the-rise-in-uk-with-1-in-3-people-admitting-prejudice-9443555.html

One third of Britons 'admit being racially prejudiced'

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27599401

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

How about you just stop playing childish games, follow the charter and support accusations that you make?

British Social Attitudes Survey. It was all over the media about a month ago.

DaniilKharms

First Up wrote: »

British Social Attitudes Survey. It was all over the media about a month ago.

And it's a survey that's been running for years and years and years.

After 9/11 the number was at 38%.

Bushmanpm

Such as the BBC? Huffington post? The Guardian? The Independent?
Yeeees, I can see a pattern emerging there!

Edit: just seen post #425
QED
Hahahahahahahaha

First Up

Bushmanpm wrote:

Such as the BBC? Huffington post? The Guardian? The Independent? Yeeees, I can see a pattern emerging there!

Are you suggesting they made it up?

Professor Moriarty

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Yeah, someone with an opinion, standing up for THEIR country (in their opinion)
Down with that sort of thing!

They lied during the campaign and they are lying today. They do that because they are the self-entitled elite who want Britain to again be the great power it once was. Plus a healthy streak of xenophobia. If that's standing up for your country, you're welcome to it.

Well thems the choices with FPTP democray: May or Corbyn

Which makes it such an unfair and unrepresentative system. The Tories are in power having received just 29% of the total eligible vote.

Really? What is it then?

Like I said, the damage it is doing to other countries and the EU.

Britain's contribution is approximately 18 billion Sterling minus roughly 40% rebate, converted to Euros makes around 12.312 billion Euros at today's rate of 1-1.14. "Not a big deal"? Who are you kidding? Put that in the context of Ireland getting a 12bn windfall. Every year! Wouldn't exactly hurt Irish infrastructure! Wrong again, keep trying.

You are wrong. The net contribution is £8.4 billion or €9.5 billion. 9.5 billion euros spread out across 26 countries is a thing of nothing.

Er, sorry to point out the blindingly obvious but isn't that exactly what the negotiations are working towards?

They are. Once Britain has decided what it is they actually want, the EU will dismiss it and tell them what they are getting. Or Britain can just toddle off if it likes.

...with other (TAX PAYERS!) money, some of which would have come from the UK, so it looks a little like a spoilt brat spitting out its dummy when mummy takes its toys away

That's a child's view of Brexit. It's actually a lot more serious than that when you look at trade so I'd begin to inform myself if I were you.

Bushmanpm

First Up wrote:

Are you suggesting they made it up?

No, I'm saying they have a certain bias

FrancieBrady

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Racism 'on the rise' in UK with 1 in 3 people admitting prejudice

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racism-on-the-rise-in-uk-with-1-in-3-people-admitting-prejudice-9443555.html

One third of Britons 'admit being racially prejudiced'

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27599401

I didn't see that when it came out, fascinating.

Fratton Fred

DaniilKharms wrote: »

The charter says I have to google things for you?

What a funny thing.

So you're happy to insinuate that it's not true - an accusation you won't back up ironically - but demand I do the work for you?

Since you're too feeble to figure out a google search:

Racism 'on the rise' in UK with 1 in 3 people admitting prejudice

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racism-on-the-rise-in-uk-with-1-in-3-people-admitting-prejudice-9443555.html

One third of Britons 'admit being racially prejudiced'

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27599401

No, the charter days that if you state something as a fact, you should back it up.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

The headlines are hugely misleading, 27% said they were a little prejudiced against people if other races, 3% said very. Which let's face it, a lot of people are regardless of what race they actually are themselves.. This is not a measure of rising racially motivated crime, discrimination in the workplace or the country moving to the right (Ashe lead researcher states herself https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/racism-in-uk-can-we-measure-racial-prejudice)

Also worth noting, is that people who say they are a bit prejudiced against people of other races, would state that they are not racist.

It's headline grabbing stuff which people like you grasp upon because, let's face it, you're a bigot.

First Up

Bushmanpm wrote:

No, I'm saying they have a certain bias

So are you saying they shouldn't have reported it?

View

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Britain's contribution is approximately 18 billion Sterling minus roughly 40% rebate, converted to Euros makes around 12.312 billion Euros at today's rate of 1-1.14. "Not a big deal"?

That's roughly the size of what the NHS annual budget for Scotland (excluding that for the rest of the UK).

It should be fairly obvious that the 27 remaining member states could easily cover the cost of the annual budget for the NHS in Scotland given that the UK manages it every year without too much trouble.

All of which is hardly germane, since as the UK is leaving, it is up to the 27 member states to balance the EU budget by increasing contributions and/or cutting expenditures.

DaniilKharms

Bushmanpm wrote: »

No, I'm saying they have a certain bias

THEY didn't run the poll.

And they reported on it when it dropped to 21% back in 2012.

You can ask why the right wing media in the UK didn't report on it, if that's what you think happened. Why would they not?

Bushmanpm

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Which makes it such an unfair and unrepresentative system. The Tories are in power having received just 29% of the total eligible vote.

That's the problem with FPTP but to change it would require the cooperation of the two biggest beneficiaries which they obviously WONT do. And yet people still carry on voting!

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Like I said, the damage it is doing to other countries and the EU.

Well why don't the other 27 get together informally and tell the EU where to go, sort it amongst themselves and stand on their own two feet? Or is it the dependency of other peoples money clouding their judgement?

Professor Moriarty wrote:

. The net contribution is £8.4 billion or €9.5 billion. 9.5 billion euros spread out across 26 countries is a thing of nothing.

"Then we get a further £4.6bn back, mostly for agricultural subsidies and development funds for poorer regions. And the EU spends about £1.4bn a year in the UK private sector" BBC

Fair enough then, it works out -4.4bn rebate and -4.6bn subsidies and development funds. Just because the EU spends 1.4bn to the private sector that's just business NOT going back to HM Treasury, do you expect they get it for free? Actually, considering you like EU freebies, don't answer that! So that still leaves a net contribution of 10 bn Sterling or 11.4bn Euros but you still consider this small change? Spread it around the other 27 nations, only two of which contribute more than the UK, and that's one massive fcuking dent to their individual finances! Around 422 million (if divided equally) for each and every single country? Greece can't wait!

Professor Moriarty wrote:

They are. Once Britain has decided what it is they actually want, the EU will dismiss it and tell them what they are getting. Or Britain can just toddle off if it likes.

You must have missed it when I said it before, that's some negotiating skill: listen to the other side the tell them what they can have? Then you whine about "Little Englanders"? Are you really surprised, with that attitude?

Professor Moriarty wrote:

That's a child's view of Brexit. It's actually a lot more serious than that when you look at trade so I'd begin to inform myself if I were you.

[/quote]

Well I like to keep it in simple terms and going on your posts, I don't particularly need you to tell me to inform myself, I've seen your results.

Bushmanpm

First Up wrote:

So are you saying they shouldn't have reported it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse to every post or just playing dumb?
Of course they should report it, its what they're there for. I would prefer if they simply reported the facts WITHOUT their little bias on everything. Its quite tiring hearing "...despite Brexit" tagged on to the end of half the reports I hear.

I'm grown up enough to take the facts and form my own opinion. Sadly, others can't by the looks of it.

murphaph

I live in Germany. The media here has grown bored of Brexit already. It's really obvious. It is seen as something to "just get done" so the EU can focus on real issues facing the union (Russia, Trump, migration crisis etc.). The EU doesn't really have time to invest in Brexit.

Nody

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm grown up enough to take the facts and form my own opinion. Sadly, others can't by the looks of it.

That would be about the Brexit voters who stated they believed the promise of £350MM a week would go to NHS I guess... You know the lies that the Leave campaign used during the run up to the election. You might recall it looked like this:

Actual number would be £160 million a week or less than half and of course NHS will get exactly nothing of that either but can expect more cuts.

Bushmanpm

Bushmanpm wrote: »

That's the problem with FPTP but to change it would require the cooperation of the two biggest beneficiaries which they obviously WONT do. And yet people still carry on voting!



Well why don't the other 27 get together informally and tell the EU where to go, sort it amongst themselves and stand on their own two feet? Or is it the dependency of other peoples money clouding their judgement?



"Then we get a further £4.6bn back, mostly for agricultural subsidies and development funds for poorer regions. And the EU spends about £1.4bn a year in the UK private sector" BBC

Fair enough then, it works out -4.4bn rebate and -4.6bn subsidies and development funds. Just because the EU spends 1.4bn to the private sector that's just business NOT going back to HM Treasury, do you expect they get it for free? Actually, considering you like EU freebies, don't answer that! So that still leaves a net contribution of 10 bn Sterling or 11.4bn Euros but you still consider this small change? Spread it around the other 27 nations, only two of which contribute more than the UK, and that's one massive fcuking dent to their individual finances! Around 422 million (if divided equally) for each and every single country? Greece can't wait!



You must have missed it when I said it before, that's some negotiating skill: listen to the other side the tell them what they can have? Then you whine about "Little Englanders"? Are you really surprised, with that attitude?

Well I like to keep it in simple terms and going on your posts, I don't particularly need you to tell me to inform myself, I've seen your results.

You realise that the other 27 are the EU?

Why would they get together informally to tell themselves formally where to go?

Professor Moriarty

Bushmanpm wrote: »

That's the problem with FPTP but to change it would require the cooperation of the two biggest beneficiaries which they obviously WONT do. And yet people still carry on voting!

They voted against changing the system in a referendum. So they deserve what they get.

Well why don't the other 27 get together informally and tell the EU where to go, sort it amongst themselves and stand on their own two feet? Or is it the dependency of other peoples money clouding their judgement?

Because they see the benefit of staying in the world's biggest trading block with free movement of people, goods, services and capital. They're just not that stupid.

"Then we get a further £4.6bn back, mostly for agricultural subsidies and development funds for poorer regions. And the EU spends about £1.4bn a year in the UK private sector" BBC

Fair enough then, it works out -4.4bn rebate and -4.6bn subsidies and development funds. Just because the EU spends 1.4bn to the private sector that's just business NOT going back to HM Treasury, do you expect they get it for free? Actually, considering you like EU freebies, don't answer that! So that still leaves a net contribution of 10 bn Sterling or 11.4bn Euros but you still consider this small change? Spread it around the other 27 nations, only two of which contribute more than the UK, and that's one massive fcuking dent to their individual finances! Around 422 million (if divided equally) for each and every single country? Greece can't wait!

Pro rata, Ireland's share would be 94 million. Which is 0.18% of government expenditure. A thing of nothing no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

You must have missed it when I said it before, that's some negotiating skill: listen to the other side the tell them what they can have? Then you whine about "Little Englanders"? Are you really surprised, with that attitude?

Attitude? Do a little research on Britain's attitude towards the EU since it joined. This is business. No place for sentiment. The EU is in a very strong position compared to Britain. If Britain walks away from the deal it will be the biggest loser by far. That gives the EU the power to set the terms.

It should use that position to maximise every advantage it can get in this deal. Britain is jumping ship to become a competitor. The more the EU can gain and the more damage it can do to Britain as a competitor, the better. Nothing personal just business.

Well I like to keep it in simple terms and going on your posts, I don't particularly need you to tell me to inform myself, I've seen your results

Sure.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: A few posts have been deleted and card handed out. No more sniping and backseat modding please.

Jaggo

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm grown up enough to take the facts and form my own opinion. Sadly, others can't by the looks of it.

(not a bit*hing comment but are you sure. The UK media has run a pretty solid anti EU campaign since thatcher in 1988.

It reached the point that the chancellor Kenneth Clark said:
"Pointedly Clarke made explicit his view of the owners of what were once loyal Conservative titles when he admitted: ‘Quite a lot of the press is owned by antiEuropean people and they go to great lengths to try and and arouse prejudice in their readers to match that of their own political
opinions’ (BBC Radio 4, 31 May 1996). It is likely that, in making these comments, the Chancellor was venting his frustration at two
well known non-European sceptics with extensive media interests:
Rupert Murdoch, the Australian turned American owner of the News International Corporation,
and the Canadian Conrad Black, proprietor of the Daily Telegraph,".
UK Nationalism stoked by foreigners! No surprise that these guys are still leading the charge now.

The campaign was so common place and silly that the Uk foreign office ran booklets describing these myths "The FCO pamphlets The European Community: Facts and Fairytales (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 1993)
and Facts and Fairytales Revisited (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 1995) featured analysis of what were termed ‘euromyths’, ‘euroscares’ and ‘eurolunacies’.
The EU commission had to release similar booklets.

EU Public Relations are largely supposed to be run by the member state themselves, (ie. the UK Gov was supposed to run the EUs good PR... well that work out well). The UK Gov found it much easier to blame then to explain.

So at the end of the day, are you really unbiased, after 30 years of agenda setting misinformation, how sure are you that you can look clearly at this? I note that you referred one of the euromyths referenced below in an earlier post:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/.

ancapailldorcha

DaniilKharms wrote: »

The charter says I have to google things for you?

If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to substantiate it especially if someone asks for evidence.

Fratton Fred

Jaggo wrote: »

(not a bit*hing comment but are you sure. The UK media has run a pretty solid anti EU campaign since thatcher in 1988.

It reached the point that the chancellor Kenneth Clark said:
"Pointedly Clarke made explicit his view of the owners of what were once loyal Conservative titles when he admitted: ‘Quite a lot of the press is owned by antiEuropean people and they go to great lengths to try and and arouse prejudice in their readers to match that of their own political
opinions’ (BBC Radio 4, 31 May 1996). It is likely that, in making these comments, the Chancellor was venting his frustration at two
well known non-European sceptics with extensive media interests:
Rupert Murdoch, the Australian turned American owner of the News International Corporation,
and the Canadian Conrad Black, proprietor of the Daily Telegraph,".
UK Nationalism stoked by foreigners! No surprise that these guys are still leading the charge now.

The campaign was so common place and silly that the Uk foreign office ran booklets describing these myths "The FCO pamphlets The European Community: Facts and Fairytales (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 1993)
and Facts and Fairytales Revisited (Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 1995) featured analysis of what were termed ‘euromyths’, ‘euroscares’ and ‘eurolunacies’.
The EU commission had to release similar booklets.

EU Public Relations are largely supposed to be run by the member state themselves, (ie. the UK Gov was supposed to run the EUs good PR... well that work out well). The UK Gov found it much easier to blame then to explain.

So at the end of the day, are you really unbiased, after 30 years of agenda setting misinformation, how sure are you that you can look clearly at this? I note that you referred one of the euromyths referenced below in an earlier post:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/.

I guess people read things in different ways.

Most of the Daily Mail and Telegraph stories relating to the EU, I always took with a huge pinch if salt a and I presumed most people did.

Maybe people Aldo believe there's a WWII bomber on the moon and a London bus at the south pole. Who knows?

BlitzKrieg

All this budget talk *yeesh*

lets try something.

Since the 2016 final budget isnt out yet, lets take 2013 and 2014 and work out how much the EU would be short from the UK departure.

These wont be final figures because what some people are not getting through their thick skulls is that the EU budget is not a set figure but a set % of the GNI of each country and of the EU overall.

So 2013: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2013/lib/financial_report_2013_en.pdf

UK paid 17 billion euros

the Uk correction, which is the amount of money paid directly by other member states the following year to pay to the UK, which is spread among them in various % (France paying the most)

2014: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2014/lib/financial_report_2014_en.pdf

total paid: 6 billion.


So that leaves 11 billion

In 2013 6 billion of the EU's budget was spent on the UK, which we can assume with brexit will no longer be spent.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2013/lib/financial_report_2013_en.pdf

page 48

That leaves 5 billion euros the EU would have been short if the UK had left in 2013.

Lets move up a year

2014

2015


2014 UK's contribution was: 14 billion

2015 UK correction payment was again 6 billion (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2015/lib/financial_report_2015_en.pdf)

that leaves 8 billion

total amount spent on UK in 2014: 6.5 billion.

so hole this time is 1.5 billion, substantially smaller


We dont know what the 2015 rebate is because the final audited budget of 2016 is not out yet

But the UK contribution in 2015 was it's highest at 21 billion

But it also had close to 7.5 billion euros spent by the EU directly on the UK

that leaves 13.5 billion

So assuming the rebate will be also substantially higher, if 14-17 billion was 6 billion, then 21 billion should be closer to 7 to 8 billion. We are looking at around 5-6 billion most likely, even if it is only 6 billion again it still puts it at 7.5 billion still short of the promised 12 billion.


The damage from Brexit will not be in the UK's departure from the budget, it seems to shrink and grow each year and with a 3 year warning and a system already in place to partially cover the loss (every EU member state already pays a UK correction fee, I will not be surprised if that is continued for a few short years after brexit til things settle).

There is no doubt there will be damage from the overall economic effect, again the budget is a % of the EU's GNI. If the EU and UK both suffer from brexit it will reflect in the budget's size but thats something none of us can accuratly predict.

At least with the UK contribution we can see the claims of 12 billion euro are a bit inflated. It seems to be a matter of picking your year to get a different figure. It's at least safe to assume it's less then 10 billion.

Junkyard Tom

Nody wrote: »

That would be about the Brexit voters who stated they believed the promise of £350MM a week would go to NHS I guess... You know the lies that the Leave campaign used during the run up to the election.

That was a particularly devious manipulation of the British public's consciousness because who wouldn't want a better, well-funded, health service?

The £350m-to-the-NHS-per-week hype appealed to people whose hearts were in the right place but who were subject to disinformation.

Zubeneschamali

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I'm trying to work out what the anti Brexit crowd hate the most

Brexit will make everyone worse off, in the UK and the EU. It may do more damage in Ireland than any other country bar the UK itself.

It is a mad idea sold on a decades-long campaign of lies.

It is going to go so horribly wrong that there won't even be any satisfaction in saying "We told you so" as our neighbours suffer.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

WTO terms would be a complete disaster for the UK's service dominated economy. You do know that WTO terms don't cover services?

Good morning!

Yes, it is a worst case scenario.

However the EU needs to be clear that the UK won't accept any deal under the sun, especially a punitive one. If it becomes clear that the EU isn't even going to engage with the UK position then a walk out at the least is necessary. The UK would take a hit but it is capable of doing so. If the EU took that stance I would definitely say that the UK should stay out.

I'm still of the view that is nonsense considering the reports of British and European negotiators discussing both Northern Ireland and the financial settlement at length at the start of this week.

The European Commission also defended Davis' leaving early saying that chief negotiators are not expected to be there all the time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.