• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

I agree with @DTA , the whole "they will want to set a bad example" thing is, IMO, a bit of a nonsense.

We are one of only 3 net contributors. Anyone else (bar France and Germany) leaving will by default be worse off. Because everyone else takes more out than they put in, as well as enjoying the ability to trade freely to try and grown their economies alongside what they take from the EU.

Ive said it a thousand times, but we are one of only 3 net contributors. That makes us a special case. It is inevitable.


What they are doing is taking advantage of our weak leadership and screwing us as hard as possible, because thats what people do in negotiations.

Would they take us back/allow us to change our minds? I think only on terms that suit them, IE all in - full membership. Taking on the Euro and embracing ever closer union.

Otherwise they are probably better off with us on a Norway type deal where we have no say but they still get out contributions and business.

The status quo is gone, we arent going back to it. Special status and veto's etc? Why would they?

I also think calls from @SpurMeUp for "what positives..." are also a bit of a red herring. We have got so far as agreeing the divorce bill, thats it, stage 1. What positives should we have even been able to get yet? That comes later.

Of course, thats by design thanks to the EU setting the agenda. They look after themselves first, its natural.

I am in fact really quite happy with the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' line, I like it - it at least gives us some clout in the talks ahead.

This is where it should get interesting, and this is where we should start to see what positives there are to come.

The next stumbling block is of course free movement. It is one of the principal reasons for the vote, and of course one of the EU pillars. It is inevitable that it will be the next contentious point. And IMO the resolution of that will be what dictates how happy people are with the deal going forward.

Partly because for some immigration is a genuine issue, and also because - imo - it represents the control the EU exert over us. People wont want a leave deal where the EU still get to have that sort of power over us.
 
It's Holland, not France, that are the other net contributor to the EU (alongside Germany and Britain). Sweden are small net contributors too.

France gains loads through the CAP - an old criticism of the EU is basically it funds French peasant farmers to not go through the agricultural reforms that the rest of the first world did in the 18th century.

The second tier (below Germany) countries of France, Italy and Spain are going to have to pull their weight an awful lot more after the UK contribution dries up
 
monkeybarry said:
Hungary are an EU member and are dragging their heals over joining the Euro.
Click to expand...
Sorry I misread your point then and not following this, good luck to them but I do think those smaller markets (recent members) will be forced. Interesting that Sweden have had no real pressure to adopt.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I am in fact really quite happy with the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' line, I like it - it at least gives us some clout in the talks ahead.

.
Click to expand...

has this not proved to be just a line, the way I am reading it is since Davis opened his mouth The divorce bill will be made legal regardless of trade talks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
If the EU was a force for good is there an argument they should be able to wish us a fair goodbye rather than screwing us? I know its a huge argument but the language used by Juncker is overly provocative at times which borders on threats which does nothing but reinforce my belief that its a cartel run by bully boys
 
Grays_1890 said:
If the EU was a force for good is there an argument they should be able to wish us a fair goodbye rather than screwing us? I know its a huge argument but the language used by Juncker is overly provocative at times which borders on threats which does nothing but reinforce my belief that its a cartel run by bully boys
Click to expand...
they have done that - we can walk away no problem, not sure how they are screwing us? The divorce bill is what they think we owe them.

They are saying that if we want the good stuff we have to pay the fee (four pillars).

Really how are they screwing us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Ive seen nothing concrete myself. I thought the sign off was of intent rather than binding? I guess itll come out in the wash...
Click to expand...
Not saying we will agree to it (but our behavior until now point to the fact we will)


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

An EU official said the guidelines for talks on future relations that had been drafted were already “Davis-proofed”, and it was clear what the consequences were if commitments were not respected.

The circulated draft includes the demand that “negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible”.

The latest draft also makes clear that talks about a future relationship will only start after an EU leaders’ summit in March, and that the leaders will make a “last call” on Friday to the British cabinet to offer a clear vision of the future.
 
r-u-s-x said:
they have done that - we can walk away no problem, not sure how they are screwing us? The divorce bill is what they think we owe them.

They are saying that if we want the good stuff we have to pay the fee (four pillars).

Really how are they screwing us?
Click to expand...

Ok Screw might be a wrong term but the language used by Juncker is provocative and OTT in my opinion.
 
I don't see this as a one way street BTW, Britain is estimated to have around €150 billion in assets that it purchased during its EU membership so that will soften the blow
 
r-u-s-x said:
Not saying we will agree to it (but our behavior until now point to the fact we will)


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt

An EU official said the guidelines for talks on future relations that had been drafted were already “Davis-proofed”, and it was clear what the consequences were if commitments were not respected.

The circulated draft includes the demand that “negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible”.

The latest draft also makes clear that talks about a future relationship will only start after an EU leaders’ summit in March, and that the leaders will make a “last call” on Friday to the British cabinet to offer a clear vision of the future.
Click to expand...

So, as yet, nothing is binding.

Reading through this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-42333875 It is clear they want to have that tied up soon as well.

And, honestly, I think thats how we have to go. How ridiculous would it be to sign off these payments without even knowing the full extent of the deal?

Oh no! The EU dont like that! Well, of course they dont. They have had us over a barrel so far, and got to a point where we will give them a hell of a lot of money - they want it. We want whats best for us, and holding that back until all is agreed is the only real ace in our hand.

Making it intended, rather than committed, is the best possible thing we can do to look after ourselves in these negotiations.

It also keeps the very real possibility of the deal collapsing and them not getting their billions, which again plays to our favour.
 
We'd make the payments anyway

The total is about the c.£15b a year net we pay anyway x the 2 year transition period (2019-21), plus a few extra liabilities beyond that
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I agree with @DTA , the whole "they will want to set a bad example" thing is, IMO, a bit of a nonsense.

We are one of only 3 net contributors. Anyone else (bar France and Germany) leaving will by default be worse off. Because everyone else takes more out than they put in, as well as enjoying the ability to trade freely to try and grown their economies alongside what they take from the EU.

Ive said it a thousand times, but we are one of only 3 net contributors. That makes us a special case. It is inevitable.


What they are doing is taking advantage of our weak leadership and screwing us as hard as possible, because thats what people do in negotiations.

Would they take us back/allow us to change our minds? I think only on terms that suit them, IE all in - full membership. Taking on the Euro and embracing ever closer union.

Otherwise they are probably better off with us on a Norway type deal where we have no say but they still get out contributions and business.

The status quo is gone, we arent going back to it. Special status and veto's etc? Why would they?

I also think calls from @SpurMeUp for "what positives..." are also a bit of a red herring. We have got so far as agreeing the divorce bill, thats it, stage 1. What positives should we have even been able to get yet? That comes later.

Of course, thats by design thanks to the EU setting the agenda. They look after themselves first, its natural.

I am in fact really quite happy with the 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' line, I like it - it at least gives us some clout in the talks ahead.

This is where it should get interesting, and this is where we should start to see what positives there are to come.

The next stumbling block is of course free movement. It is one of the principal reasons for the vote, and of course one of the EU pillars. It is inevitable that it will be the next contentious point. And IMO the resolution of that will be what dictates how happy people are with the deal going forward.

Partly because for some immigration is a genuine issue, and also because - imo - it represents the control the EU exert over us. People wont want a leave deal where the EU still get to have that sort of power over us.
Click to expand...

Some interesting points. Some contradictions too. We're net contributors and the EU don't want to punish us...but they wouldn't give us the same deal we have now? That would alienate the UK. No one would want to stay in. I don't agree with your logic there. I think there is something in writing from the EU to say that so long as we are not using article 50 as a way to improve our membership terms, then they are open to us staying as we are. I forget where or what this text is, maybe @milo knows.

Why are Brexit positives a red herring? Going through all this nonsense, damaging our economy, losing 15% off our currency, shafting investment into the UK, losing spare cash for the Exchequer to spend...and we can't point to any positives? Surely not.

Nothing is agree until everything is agreed, really shows that we are nowhere near having an agreement and simply have not moved from the status quo. If we reach an agreement then maybe we will be able to weigh up the pros and cons. If we don't, then we absolutely need a vote to see if people want to leave on WTO terms or stay in. Why should we cut down our options of remaining when we're not much closer to a concrete outcome? Its almost as through a binary leave-remain allegiance stops people from considering anything which doesn't fit their tribal in or out view point.

Would you be happy with a Norway model? Or a WTO model?

I'm all for a Brexit that works and has something exciting for the UK. But I'm yet to hear any viable and positive plan or vision. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Its not a contradiction to state that the idea of them making an example of us doesnt hold water, but by the same token they will see us changing our minds as an advantageous position for them for their future prospects.

Ask yourself, why would they just carry on as if nothing has happened, instead of taking the opportunity to have us fully integrate and remove the chance of further events like this?

The seeking of positives is a red herring at this point. How would there be any? We have just agreed a divorce bill, nothing forward looking. In time, perhaps when trade talks progress, there will be positives to discuss (or not!), but to look for them now is premature at best and rather leading at worst.

Nothing is agreed until everything agreed is a tool for us to actually hold some weight in these negotiations. Nothing more. It doesnt show anything like us remaining with the status quo. We have an agreement, in principle, but we reserve the right to pull the rug on that if further negotiations are not acceptable. It would be madness to sign the current deal off before seeing what is on offer later on.

And I still dont think there should be a vote to change the result of the referendum. To decide what leaving looks like? Deal vs WTO? Maybe Id be on board. But to stay? No.
 
Grays_1890 said:
If the EU was a force for good is there an argument they should be able to wish us a fair goodbye rather than screwing us? I know its a huge argument but the language used by Juncker is overly provocative at times which borders on threats which does nothing but reinforce my belief that its a cartel run by bully boys
Click to expand...

Examples please. Do you have examples that support this belief?

Looking at the European Court of Justice the other day, when you actually look into it, it seems to be representative with one judge per member nation, and does good things like ensures delayed flights across the EU are eligible for customer compensation, or ensure mobile phone companies can't change us astronomical roaming charges. I think what you're missing is that its a force for good for its members. Why should it sort us out over its members? Odd kind of logic. If France was leaving you wouldn't want us to pay for their exit would you?

 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
SpurMeUp said:
Examples please. Do you have examples that support this belief?

Looking at the European Court of Justice the other day, when you actually look into it, it seems to be representative with one judge per member nation, and does good things like ensures delayed flights across the EU are eligible for customer compensation, or ensure mobile phone companies can't change us astronomical roaming charges. I think what you're missing is that its a force for good for its members. Why should it sort us out over its members? Odd kind of logic. If France was leaving you wouldn't want us to pay for their exit would you?

Click to expand...

No but if you was in an organisation for a long time as a member and you decided to leave due to the people of said country voting I would hope they would be a little less aggressive with their language and attitude. Juncker in every interview is aggressive and rude about the situation which I find baffling if I am honest.
 
Junckers philosophy, you can do what you want and choose what you want as long as its one of my ideas, if not I will cry and swear about it.

The idea that either Juncker or the EU parliament represents the European citizens is ridiculous. No-one elected Juncker - he was nominated and nodded through under a secret vote and the average MEP was elected by 12% of their constituents. Despite all the talking no-one cares about Brussels and just wants to get on with their lives - the average 30% turnout at EU elections demonstrates this.
 
Grays_1890 said:
No but if you was in an organisation for a long time as a member and you decided to leave due to the people of said country voting I would hope they would be a little less aggressive with their language and attitude. Juncker in every interview is aggressive and rude about the situation which I find baffling if I am honest.
Click to expand...

Look at the language that Farage et al used and maybe you will have your reasons... to be honest I don' think the eu have been aggessive in their language and attitude. They are just fighting for the best deal for their members. They are by far the stronger party and therefore have the advantage which they are pushing home. Like I said negotiations with the US will be much much worse.

However if we tried to negotiate trade with much smaller economies, then we would be in a position of power. And would be able to negotiate favourable terms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back