| Brexit Progress 10:06 - Sep 6 with 36353 views | Batterseajack |
Michael Gove “we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want”
Boris Johnson “continue to be free trade and access to the single market”
David Davis “We will do deals with our trading partners and do them quickly”
Well these quotes couldn't seem further from truth right now. They campaigned for Brexit , yet now these three are in positions of power, appear totally incapable of delivering it and have vastly underestimated and misunderstood their counterparts in the EU. Will these three or even the Tories ever be accountable for how Brexit is being carried out?
BTW - This is not intended as another argument for the rights and wrongs for voting to leave / remain. But to discuss the politicians who appear to have no plan whatsoever for this. |  | | |  |
| Brexit Progress on 23:33 - Sep 6 with 4056 views | Edmundo |
| Brexit Progress on 19:20 - Sep 6 by sherpajacob |
For the last 40 years the EU has been more flexible towards the UK than any other member state with rebates, opt outs and veto's.
Since the referendum the EU has been consistent and transparent in all its positions.
The UK on the other hand. |
I don't think they've been that flexible. Remember when Cameron asked them to consider some amendments (before the referendum) and was told to bugger off. Which is why we are now in midst of Brexit negotiations. The EU is a tyrranical organisation that will not listen to voters intentions (Ireland, Denmark and Holland votes re-run). Not such a democratic organisation are they really. 😠|  |
| Swansea City-Officially the best football team in Wales-FACT |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 00:50 - Sep 7 with 4038 views | Highjack |
| Brexit Progress on 23:33 - Sep 6 by Edmundo |
I don't think they've been that flexible. Remember when Cameron asked them to consider some amendments (before the referendum) and was told to bugger off. Which is why we are now in midst of Brexit negotiations. The EU is a tyrranical organisation that will not listen to voters intentions (Ireland, Denmark and Holland votes re-run). Not such a democratic organisation are they really. 😠|
Exactly. It's a complete dictatorship. See today they are overriding the democratically elected government of Hungary. They will now have to accept thousands of migrants or "face the consequences". If that's not a dictatorship I don't know what is. One spokesman even said "it doesn't matter whether they voted for it or not".
Get us out ASAP. |  |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 01:04 - Sep 7 with 4035 views | LeonWasGod |
| Brexit Progress on 23:33 - Sep 6 by Edmundo |
I don't think they've been that flexible. Remember when Cameron asked them to consider some amendments (before the referendum) and was told to bugger off. Which is why we are now in midst of Brexit negotiations. The EU is a tyrranical organisation that will not listen to voters intentions (Ireland, Denmark and Holland votes re-run). Not such a democratic organisation are they really. 😠|
That was Cameron though - not exactly liked in the EU because of the way he carried on when he was first PM (taking the tories out of a the largest centre right European party with influence and shaking up with a bunch of right wing nutjobs instead, to honour his bribe to backbenchers for their vote for him in the leadership vote). And he was weak, very weak. Although he did achieve greater security measures that people wanted (not that you'd know it, as it gets very little coverage).
I would say it less a matter of the EU being flexible, more that over the years we have had influence and success in shaping the EU project. We've pushed for and been successful in achieving a range of reforms - CAP, Common Fisheries Policy, anti-corruption and open voting reforms, increased environmental regulations; we lobbied for expansion of the EU, first by accession of the former Soviet States, and more lately we were the chief proponent of Turkey joining; we wrapped up negs on and proudly launched the single market, etc., etc.
It seems to me that we've been very successful in getting what we want.
Agreed, elements aren't democratic, but then neither are elements of our government - the Civil Service, the Lords.... It's all an old boys club, but you have a lot more influence in the club than out of it. |  | | |
| Brexit Progress on 07:20 - Sep 7 with 4004 views | Kilkennyjack |
The EU were going to chase down wealthy tax dodgers. This is why the British press barons supported Brexit. Nobody really thinks its a good idea, you would have to be a half wit.
Blair has said that in his 9 years as PM there was not a single decision that the EU prevented him from taking. Its all bollox.
If you are a working class person then the EU legislation that protects your workers rights, is a good enough reason to stay on its own. Not to mention the EU money into Wales.
Don't be a sucker. Stop hard Brexit. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Brexit Progress on 07:39 - Sep 7 with 3993 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
The EU want to talk money first, I wonder why? |  |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 08:18 - Sep 7 with 3974 views | nice_to_michu |
| Brexit Progress on 07:39 - Sep 7 by JACKMANANDBOY |
The EU want to talk money first, I wonder why? |
Because the EU is an economic and political union, perhaps? |  | | |
| Brexit Progress on 09:25 - Sep 7 with 3963 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 07:39 - Sep 7 by JACKMANANDBOY |
The EU want to talk money first, I wonder why? |
Because we have an existing financial obligation to pay them that needs settling and the amount needs agreeing. This should be agreed before hand so that the amount doesn't get muddied in the water depending on how future negotiations pan out. Surely you can understand that position. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 09:31 - Sep 7 with 3955 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 18:48 - Sep 6 by PozuelosSideys |
Not at all. Takes two sides to do a deal as you know. If one side just wants to block, then it probably will never get made. That doesnt necessarily mean the UK ends up being the loser here, despite all the crying and whinging. Not saying itll be all sunshine and rainbows, but there are plenty of potential upsides to go alongside the downs.
It does sound like the UK have tried to be flexible, while the EU just throws out unrealistic demands. But like i said, we dont know any of the details behind closed doors. |
But if we had the upper hand in negotiations with our buying power as was sold to leavers before the vote, then the EU would be mad to block the deal as you suggest.
In terms of David Davis being flexible, he hasn't even outlined what the UK's position is or turned up remotely prepared according to reports. The EU have been upfront with theirs. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brexit Progress on 09:43 - Sep 7 with 3947 views | johnlangy |
Yesterday our joke of a Prime Minister stood up in the commons and said their plans for control of EU immigration would allow them to control numbers in the way that they've been able to control non EU immigration numbers in the past.
Numbers like 350,000 immigrants coming into the UK every year, equivalent to a City the size of Newcastle, were bandied about by the Brexit liars throughout the referendum campaign. Half of those were non EU immigrants. The government did precisely NOTHING to control those numbers.
If they stop EU immigration completely, a disaster for the UK, that would still leave 175,000 non EU immigrants each year as things stand. And they say their TOTAL target is below 100,000.
The lunatics really are running the asylum. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 09:50 - Sep 7 with 3943 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Brexit Progress on 09:25 - Sep 7 by Batterseajack |
Because we have an existing financial obligation to pay them that needs settling and the amount needs agreeing. This should be agreed before hand so that the amount doesn't get muddied in the water depending on how future negotiations pan out. Surely you can understand that position. |
Well, call me old fashioned, but, I normally agree the terms of a contract before agreeing a price. I can't recall any commercial relationship where we've agreed the price before agreeing the specification.
Surely you can understand that position, If not just send me £10,000. [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 9:51]
| |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 10:01 - Sep 7 with 3933 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 09:50 - Sep 7 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Well, call me old fashioned, but, I normally agree the terms of a contract before agreeing a price. I can't recall any commercial relationship where we've agreed the price before agreeing the specification.
Surely you can understand that position, If not just send me £10,000. [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 9:51]
|
If we sack a manager a year into a 4 year contract (which is effectively a spending commitment to that manager). We don't pay off the entire 3 years he had left on the contract, but we also don't pay him nothing either. There is a certain amount that should be paid that is argued over.
The UK has committed to numerous long term spending commitments during its time in the EU and it would be unfair to stop these immediately after we leave. [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 11:01]
| | | |
| Brexit Progress on 10:56 - Sep 7 with 3914 views | NOTRAC |
What a coward Cameron was. To disappear so quickly from a scene that he instigated was disgraceful.
He almost started the break up of the United Kingdom with his first referendum.
To promote the Brexit referendum was idiocy. | |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 11:08 - Sep 7 with 3906 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 10:56 - Sep 7 by NOTRAC |
What a coward Cameron was. To disappear so quickly from a scene that he instigated was disgraceful.
He almost started the break up of the United Kingdom with his first referendum.
To promote the Brexit referendum was idiocy. |
On one hand he had a duty to the country to look after its best interest which he believed was to remain in the EU. So you could argue that shouldn't have jeopardize the country by calling the referendum, if in his view, leaving the EU would damage it.
But on the other hand, the nation decided that it wanted to leave, will of the people and all that, so leave them to it. The people who campaigned to leave but offered no leadership or zero vision afterwards i'd hold more accountable. [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 11:08]
| | | |
| Brexit Progress on 11:13 - Sep 7 with 3900 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Brexit Progress on 10:01 - Sep 7 by Batterseajack |
If we sack a manager a year into a 4 year contract (which is effectively a spending commitment to that manager). We don't pay off the entire 3 years he had left on the contract, but we also don't pay him nothing either. There is a certain amount that should be paid that is argued over.
The UK has committed to numerous long term spending commitments during its time in the EU and it would be unfair to stop these immediately after we leave. [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 11:01]
|
Actually, legally, we do have to pay off the entire 3 years he had left on the contract.
The only negotiations come over performance related elements.
The same people who argue that we shouldn't pay what is due, would take a very different stance if Scotland had voted for independence. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 11:17 - Sep 7 with 3895 views | NOTRAC |
| Brexit Progress on 11:08 - Sep 7 by Batterseajack |
On one hand he had a duty to the country to look after its best interest which he believed was to remain in the EU. So you could argue that shouldn't have jeopardize the country by calling the referendum, if in his view, leaving the EU would damage it.
But on the other hand, the nation decided that it wanted to leave, will of the people and all that, so leave them to it. The people who campaigned to leave but offered no leadership or zero vision afterwards i'd hold more accountable. [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 11:08]
|
I didn't hear him saying before the referendum that he was going if the vote was to leave.
In retrospect the referendum was a farce with so many untruths told on both sides,it should never have been called. | |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 11:18 - Sep 7 with 3895 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 11:13 - Sep 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually, legally, we do have to pay off the entire 3 years he had left on the contract.
The only negotiations come over performance related elements.
The same people who argue that we shouldn't pay what is due, would take a very different stance if Scotland had voted for independence. |
Happy to be corrected by you there Lisa. However, I doubt any minds would not have been changed on this matter regarding payment to the EU. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 13:13 - Sep 7 with 3860 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Brexit Progress on 21:06 - Sep 6 by sherpajacob |
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/financial-settlement-
The EU have said what the bill should cover, which is essentially a one off payment to cover expenditure on items and projects the UK had previously agreed to. They did this back in May.
It will not cover access to single market, but you would know that if you had been following any of it.
Anyway Theresa May says we are leaving the single market as to retain "unfettered access" would mean the jurisdiction of ECJ.
as Davis said " nobody said it would be easy" apart from Liam Fox who said it would be the easiest thing in history. Strong and Stable? |
Thanks
Wheres the itemised bill? All i can see is anecodotal, finger in the air stuff?
Lets be clear here, this isnt a bill. This is an ad hoc document which itself states it uses the EUs own methodology and assumptions. There is no detail in it other than what the EUs preferences/requests are?
Additionally, if they are happy to provide the document pertaining to the UKs liabilities, where is the document outlining the UKs assets? There should be a heavy chunk of that too considering.
Instead of constantly posting about May and that Strong and Stable thing (dunno if youre just really boring or that youre into NLP - just post it as your footer, save yourself loads of time) |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 13:18 - Sep 7 with 3855 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Brexit Progress on 11:13 - Sep 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually, legally, we do have to pay off the entire 3 years he had left on the contract.
The only negotiations come over performance related elements.
The same people who argue that we shouldn't pay what is due, would take a very different stance if Scotland had voted for independence. |
Not necessarily. Depends on the wording of the contract and the reasons for dismissal.
Anyway, an employee/employer contract is nothing like this situation | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 13:35 - Sep 7 with 3839 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 13:13 - Sep 7 by PozuelosSideys |
Thanks
Wheres the itemised bill? All i can see is anecodotal, finger in the air stuff?
Lets be clear here, this isnt a bill. This is an ad hoc document which itself states it uses the EUs own methodology and assumptions. There is no detail in it other than what the EUs preferences/requests are?
Additionally, if they are happy to provide the document pertaining to the UKs liabilities, where is the document outlining the UKs assets? There should be a heavy chunk of that too considering.
Instead of constantly posting about May and that Strong and Stable thing (dunno if youre just really boring or that youre into NLP - just post it as your footer, save yourself loads of time) |
There's no point in you saying there's no bill when there clearly is one. Dai Davis has admitted so. Apologies if this is too boring for you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4696084/David-Davis-hints-UK-pay-money-E | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 13:41 - Sep 7 with 3838 views | PozuelosSideys |
Still struggling to see an itemised line by line? Or are you too posh in Battersea to have those while you whap it all on Daddys Amex black?
If you look at what Sherpa put up earlier, there are some pretty clear lines in that which certainly do require funding - ie paying for UK secondees based in teh EU etc - its people. No issue with that. Just the same as the commitments made with the refugee camps in Turkey.
The rest of it is far, far more murky. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Brexit Progress on 13:51 - Sep 7 with 3828 views | wobbly |
| Brexit Progress on 09:25 - Sep 7 by Batterseajack |
Because we have an existing financial obligation to pay them that needs settling and the amount needs agreeing. This should be agreed before hand so that the amount doesn't get muddied in the water depending on how future negotiations pan out. Surely you can understand that position. |
I understand the position but I don't agree with it. I think it's another example of an over-bureaucratic institution boxing itself into a ridiculous position that it's is then too intransigent to change. The EU27 have signed up to the approach and you can't get 27 nations to then change their mind that quickly when it's shown to be wrong.
How can you agree the exit bill, before negotiating the future trade arrangements, when it's painfully obvious that the value of the exit bill will change depending on how long the transitional arrangements (if any) go on for.
Of course, you won't read this in our media. They are too enthralled with Barnier being an ace negotiator whilst ours are all dullards to actually think about what is going on. |  | | |
| Brexit Progress on 14:11 - Sep 7 with 3812 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 13:41 - Sep 7 by PozuelosSideys |
Still struggling to see an itemised line by line? Or are you too posh in Battersea to have those while you whap it all on Daddys Amex black?
If you look at what Sherpa put up earlier, there are some pretty clear lines in that which certainly do require funding - ie paying for UK secondees based in teh EU etc - its people. No issue with that. Just the same as the commitments made with the refugee camps in Turkey.
The rest of it is far, far more murky. |
Here you go,
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a
These figures will be scrutinized, by both sides and will probably change, but its highly unlikely that we will pay nothing, unless we decide to crash out without a deal.
The three key areas are;
◠EU budget items (such as road or rail projects) that had yet to be paid (a category, formally known as reste à liquider, which amounts to about €241bn).
◠Other legal commitments to projects that would be initiated after Brexit takes place in 2019, such as investment projects in less developed regions, in rural areas and for fisheries (a total of up to €172bn).
â— Long-term obligations and liabilities such as pension promises and contingent loan guarantees.
There's a nice graph further down the page showing liabilities and assets. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 14:15 - Sep 7 with 3810 views | Batterseajack |
| Brexit Progress on 13:51 - Sep 7 by wobbly |
I understand the position but I don't agree with it. I think it's another example of an over-bureaucratic institution boxing itself into a ridiculous position that it's is then too intransigent to change. The EU27 have signed up to the approach and you can't get 27 nations to then change their mind that quickly when it's shown to be wrong.
How can you agree the exit bill, before negotiating the future trade arrangements, when it's painfully obvious that the value of the exit bill will change depending on how long the transitional arrangements (if any) go on for.
Of course, you won't read this in our media. They are too enthralled with Barnier being an ace negotiator whilst ours are all dullards to actually think about what is going on. |
what are you talking about? Most of our printed media were fiercely for Brexit and demonize the likes of Barnier at any opportunity.
As for agreeing the exit bill after negotiating future trade agreements, that would be madness for the EU. Why would the EU risk allowing favorable terms for the UK, only for the UK to potentially turn around in the future and say they won't pay a penny for what they previously agreed to. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 14:26 - Sep 7 with 3802 views | wobbly |
| Brexit Progress on 14:15 - Sep 7 by Batterseajack |
what are you talking about? Most of our printed media were fiercely for Brexit and demonize the likes of Barnier at any opportunity.
As for agreeing the exit bill after negotiating future trade agreements, that would be madness for the EU. Why would the EU risk allowing favorable terms for the UK, only for the UK to potentially turn around in the future and say they won't pay a penny for what they previously agreed to. |
That exit bill covers our legal obligations over the coming years that we have already committed to. Many of those payments are due for,obligations that fall due over multiple years.
It is possible we are going to continue to make some or all of our current annual contributions to the Eu post exit, in return for continued access to the customs union and the single market. If that was to be negotiated for, say, 3 years after the exit date in order to smooth our exit, then clearly our exit bill has to reduce by the amount of contributions for those 3 years. Otherwise we would be paying twice.
But we can't negotiate on whether we can have any such transitional arrangements, how much we might pay and how long for, until we agree the exit fee.
It's preposterous. But not unusual. The EU is barmy. | | | |
| Brexit Progress on 14:26 - Sep 7 with 3800 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Brexit Progress on 14:11 - Sep 7 by Batterseajack |
Here you go,
https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a
These figures will be scrutinized, by both sides and will probably change, but its highly unlikely that we will pay nothing, unless we decide to crash out without a deal.
The three key areas are;
◠EU budget items (such as road or rail projects) that had yet to be paid (a category, formally known as reste à liquider, which amounts to about €241bn).
◠Other legal commitments to projects that would be initiated after Brexit takes place in 2019, such as investment projects in less developed regions, in rural areas and for fisheries (a total of up to €172bn).
â— Long-term obligations and liabilities such as pension promises and contingent loan guarantees.
There's a nice graph further down the page showing liabilities and assets. |
Thanks. Cant access the FT site, so will assume you have pulled the key notes out.
Doesnt really provide what the UK is expected to contribute to each of those areas though does it, regardless of whether we were in or out of the EU? They are just total expected costs. None of those things would be acceptable incurred costs for the UK, unless pension liabilities and loan coverage were linked to UK persons.
Edit: if there are subsets of UK data, can you post them up? [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 14:27]
| |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
