Brexit negotiations

Bread2.0 wrote:Serious question for leave advocates:

(And please ignore the sexist undertone, I'm phrasing it this way because we're predominantly heterosexual males on here.)

If you're wife spotted a car for sale on a garage forecourt and decided she wanted it, would the fact that she said "I want it" mean that you had to go ahead and buy it, even if, when you inspected it closely, you discovered that the salesman was obviously lying to you when he said it was a great car because you'd spotted that it only had 3 wheels and the engine was knackered?

Would her initially having said "Yes, I want this!" despite the fact that the independent RAC report you'd commissioned indicating that it was a pile of junk mean that you went ahead and handed your cash over anyway?

Simply because she'd made an ill-informed, snap judgement based on first impressions which subsequently were proven to be inaccurate?

Would you....?

Eh....?

Would you........?

We've bought it anyway. Oh dear. 

Bread2.0 wrote:Serious question for leave advocates:

(And please ignore the sexist undertone, I'm phrasing it this way because we're predominantly heterosexual males on here.)

If you're wife spotted a car for sale on a garage forecourt and decided she wanted it, would the fact that she said "I want it" mean that you had to go ahead and buy it, even if, when you inspected it closely, you discovered that the salesman was obviously lying to you when he said it was a great car because you'd spotted that it only had 3 wheels and the engine was knackered?

Would her initially having said "Yes, I want this!" despite the fact that the independent RAC report you'd commissioned indicating that it was a pile of junk mean that you went ahead and handed your cash over anyway?

Simply because she'd made an ill-informed, snap judgement based on first impressions which subsequently were proven to be inaccurate?

Would you....?

Eh....?

Would you........?

Lets be honest, we've all actually done this, although to a lesser degree, but more important, we've always compromised. 

A poor analogy breaders, every bloke gives in if the missus puts her foot down, eve if it doesn't always make for an easier life. 

I find the ultimatum given to the UK for the payment of the divorce bill rather confusing. We said, in Florence, that we will honour all our commitments, yet we are being forced to come up with a figure, or an open cheque, within 2 weeks. We have asked for a list of what we have committed to, and for how much, although this has been ignored.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Bread2.0 wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:This is one of the reasons so many people voted for Brexit. 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2F%7E%2Farticle-5069669%2Findex.html&h=ATNm1n-KzdJ79StuI8hhZVvojtX9sf5TSleIXOv673AJ6rAL9H8KUlyX5xB6Oi9satlIs5b1nzqymP-KTEZBAM-PHjcHrUXfs62jz_lf1APHc512cx4dvBnD5yFo7VJ4BcbG6KTf0VUIZY4cYHRbF7UavTMKCTYeB9kKVYqzqy_v-LzuAEYUCEUhnfq3hHhFEo825XgK1EmjlQWY84B72eC9_j7w9HKOm-UbCDnRYkrc3_rpeLmo96wPvF0SbNA6bMhtvWLJvYNtJp2LRi7bStSIXGFFS5Zd-mAM8fRFckdj

Sorry, RT but it clearly states in there that the Home Office fucked up and that's why he's entitled under UK law to compo.

WTF has that got to do with the EU?

Read paragraph 7. Again.  It states, " The European Court of Human Rights had ordered that he stay in Britain despite the Governments attempts to deport him."

It's shit like this where we cannot get rid of low life scum and send them back from whence they came that pisses people off.

The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It is a completely separate matter. Here is a link that explains it (although it is no surprise that the Daily Mail and brexit fans are incapable of appreciating this simple fact):
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiiqtvdjLXXAhUM2hoKHVeWBg0QFgg6MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEuropean_Court_of_Human_Rights&usg=AOvVaw2SOj3x3QP_Zg5oy1KyvIT7

(although it is no surprise that the Daily Mail and brexit fans are incapable of appreciating this simple fact):


XM, is this really necessary ? (I bet you still get upset with the big red bus and the £350M  ) No, my comment is necessary either, but I get tired of indiscriminate sniping of those who voted out.

Glos, in response to your reply at the top of this page. I’m not interested in whatever abuse apparently occurred on here, my comment is purely about the topic itself and my points are valid. 

I don’t buy this idea we should all shut up and focus on getting a good deal, id like to see the promises of the leavers honoured rather than brushed under the carpet and when they are proved false they should be held to account rather than brushed under the carpet as otherwise politicians will continue to lie to get into power rendering what they say entirely pointless.

You mentioned Xmiles post in your comment, but had you checked the link? She’d made entirely false claims about Turkey during the referendum to stoke up fear, and it was spurious claims like this and the ones I listed which helped swing the vote.

gloswhite wrote:I find the ultimatum given to the UK for the payment of the divorce bill rather confusing. We said, in Florence, that we will honour all our commitments, yet we are being forced to come up with a figure, or an open cheque, within 2 weeks. We have asked for a list of what we have committed to, and for how much, although this has been ignored.

I find it confusing too because we already know the commitments we have made and it adds up to about 10% of our national expenditure for one year, at least £90 billion. The Government entered into these agreements so if they genuinely don't know what the exact figure they have agreed to commit, the Government is even more incompetent than we thought. 
I have three main problems with this scenario:
1) That the Remain campaign didn't point out to the British public at the time of the referendum that the immediate cost of leaving makes the paltry £350 million figure quoted by the Leave campaign peanuts in the scheme of things. 
2) That we subsequently voted to not get the benefit of the development programmes we have invested so heavily in - which means that we will have to pay even more to create our own programmes to replace them, effectively paying twice for them pushing the cost of Brexit up even higher which will inevitably lead to cutbacks across the board.
3) That the Government continues to hide the truth from the British public in order to ride what's left of their wave of political popularity.

All this leads me to the conclusion that at some point in the future when the economy is f*****, defence/health/care etc services are cut and jobs disappear, the Tories will turn round and say we may be a lot worse off, but this is what you wanted and we delivered it.

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I find the ultimatum given to the UK for the payment of the divorce bill rather confusing. We said, in Florence, that we will honour all our commitments, yet we are being forced to come up with a figure, or an open cheque, within 2 weeks. We have asked for a list of what we have committed to, and for how much, although this has been ignored.

I find it confusing too because we already know the commitments we have made and it adds up to about 10% of our national expenditure for one year, at least £90 billion. The Government entered into these agreements so if they genuinely don't know what the exact figure they have agreed to commit, the Government is even more incompetent than we thought. 
I have three main problems with this scenario:
1) That the Remain campaign didn't point out to the British public at the time of the referendum that the immediate cost of leaving makes the paltry £350 million figure quoted by the Leave campaign peanuts in the scheme of things. 
2) That we subsequently voted to not get the benefit of the development programmes we have invested so heavily in - which means that we will have to pay even more to create our own programmes to replace them, effectively paying twice for them pushing the cost of Brexit up even higher which will inevitably lead to cutbacks across the board.
3) That the Government continues to hide the truth from the British public in order to ride what's left of their wave of political popularity.

All this leads me to the conclusion that at some point in the future when the economy is f*****, defence/health/care etc services are cut and jobs disappear, the Tories will turn round and say we may be a lot worse off, but this is what you wanted and we delivered it.

Might be wrong, but is one of the big grey areas regarding the divorce payment, to do with the payment of pensions and other admin things? Also, we never seem to hear about our assets over there, which I believe adds up to a few pennies. Its the insistence on a specific figure that I find odd.
Your point 2) I agree with, and it will have a direct effect on the outcome. However, in fairness, we've been doing this for years, part of the rich nations appearing to help the less well off members, (and good for propaganda, and influence within the EU).
Your point 3) I agree with this, but for different reasons. We don't necessarily want to highlight our shortcomings in too many areas, which would weaken our bargaining position further. Publication could well give those in the party the opportunity for even more in-fighting, although, in truth, this is starting to happen with today's report of Boris and Gove pushing the PM for a more positive approach to Brexit.
All politicians have a way out, and I think your last comment will be the standard fall-back. I'm hoping that at such a time, when all the bullshit and bollocks has been stripped away, and we see where we stand, we actually see the problems being addressed. Like yourself, I just hope we haven't done too much damage in the meantime, due to our inability to actually govern.
At this very moment in time, I am completely disillusioned with May, and her hands off approach. Its completely wrong, and the EU, along with her party, and Cabinet, are running rings around her. (Even Priti Patel thought she could freelance !). I'm just hoping that the real politicians are doing something good in the background.

gloswhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I find the ultimatum given to the UK for the payment of the divorce bill rather confusing. We said, in Florence, that we will honour all our commitments, yet we are being forced to come up with a figure, or an open cheque, within 2 weeks. We have asked for a list of what we have committed to, and for how much, although this has been ignored.

I find it confusing too because we already know the commitments we have made and it adds up to about 10% of our national expenditure for one year, at least £90 billion. The Government entered into these agreements so if they genuinely don't know what the exact figure they have agreed to commit, the Government is even more incompetent than we thought. 
I have three main problems with this scenario:
1) That the Remain campaign didn't point out to the British public at the time of the referendum that the immediate cost of leaving makes the paltry £350 million figure quoted by the Leave campaign peanuts in the scheme of things. 
2) That we subsequently voted to not get the benefit of the development programmes we have invested so heavily in - which means that we will have to pay even more to create our own programmes to replace them, effectively paying twice for them pushing the cost of Brexit up even higher which will inevitably lead to cutbacks across the board.
3) That the Government continues to hide the truth from the British public in order to ride what's left of their wave of political popularity.

All this leads me to the conclusion that at some point in the future when the economy is f*****, defence/health/care etc services are cut and jobs disappear, the Tories will turn round and say we may be a lot worse off, but this is what you wanted and we delivered it.

Might be wrong, but is one of the big grey areas regarding the divorce payment, to do with the payment of pensions and other admin things? Also, we never seem to hear about our assets over there, which I believe adds up to a few pennies. Its the insistence on a specific figure that I find odd.
Your point 2) I agree with, and it will have a direct effect on the outcome. However, in fairness, we've been doing this for years, part of the rich nations appearing to help the less well off members, (and good for propaganda, and influence within the EU).
Your point 3) I agree with this, but for different reasons. We don't necessarily want to highlight our shortcomings in too many areas, which would weaken our bargaining position further. Publication could well give those in the party the opportunity for even more in-fighting, although, in truth, this is starting to happen with today's report of Boris and Gove pushing the PM for a more positive approach to Brexit.
All politicians have a way out, and I think your last comment will be the standard fall-back. I'm hoping that at such a time, when all the bullshit and bollocks has been stripped away, and we see where we stand, we actually see the problems being addressed. Like yourself, I just hope we haven't done too much damage in the meantime, due to our inability to actually govern.
At this very moment in time, I am completely disillusioned with May, and her hands off approach. Its completely wrong, and the EU, along with her party, and Cabinet, are running rings around her. (Even Priti Patel thought she could freelance !). I'm just hoping that the real politicians are doing something good in the background.

Sorry to be so doom and gloom about the whole situation but I can't see any realistic scenario where we gain from exiting.
There has to be a specific figure based on what we've agreed to including pension contributions. If we agreed to it, we should pay it. Not sure about whether UK assets in the EU affect the figure as they are and always have been subject to the laws and taxes of the country in which they are based and that won't change.
As regards point 2 I don't completely buy this business of the richer nations in the EU "subsidising" the poorer ones - I see it more as a membership fee in order to get the benefits of membership. Our annual net contribution is currently around £3.8 billion (less than half a percent of the Government's annual spend) but in return we get 27 trade agreements that allow us to import EU goods and foodstuffs at a much lower price than we would otherwise paying. That alone has artificially kept the UK cost of living down for the last 40 years which is why food prices haven't really risen - and in many cases fallen. Sure we've had to adapt our eating habits accordingly with the rise of cheap foreign imports through the likes of Aldi and Lidl etc but this has had the effect of keeping British supermarkets competitive. It could and should be argued that our membership of the EU is a net economic benefit, but in putting forward the more complex argument the nationalist press wouldn't have a stick to beat the EU with so they won't do it. Where I do have a problem with EU subsidies is the Common Agricultural Policy especially in Britain where the majority of rebate is spent on supporting the farmers - traditionally one of the richest sectors in our country and when the EU farming subsidies end, our farmers will be left to compete against subsidised European farmers and they won't have the added advantage of cheap European labour if the immigration laws are tightened even further.
When I wrote about "hiding the truth" from the public in point 3, I agree they shouldn't be publicising anything that weakens our negotiating position, but I don't think it would as the EU economists as well as our own know exactly what the impact of every agreed measure will be and many papers such as the FT analyse every move to death so most of it is in the public domain anyway. What gets me is that the Government talks in soundbites, usually about what they are doing - but without any clear explanation of the issues or analysis of what the EU might do about it.  
Ultimately negotiation is about seeking agreeable compromises on both sides and our Government has some hard choices and compromises to make so I think they should be more open in informing the British public what those choices and compromises are rather than making them for us without any consultation and then presenting their decisions to us as a fait accomplice. 

For example they should be asking us if we want to cut immigrant workers or continue to have cheap food. Do we want to be part of the EU scientific community or do we want to go it alone and fund the research ourselves (at the expense of e.g. the NHS or education?) Do we want to be part of a European military force or should we cut back on the armed services? Do we want to subsidise our own farmers and if so where should Government expenditure be cut in order to pay for it?

There are a lot of serious questions to be answered and the decisions made now will shape the future of this country so the last thing we need is a weak Government that is forcing through an agenda whilst keeping the public in the dark about what is really happening.

Just in case anyone is interested here is a neutral analysis of the bill for leaving the EU. Funnily enough not something anyone on the brexit campaign ever mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42025865

I like this XM. It shows a fair and sensible view of the shenanigans we keep hearing about.

xmiles wrote:Just in case anyone is interested here is a neutral analysis of the bill for leaving the EU. Funnily enough not something anyone on the brexit campaign ever mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42025865

Tusk gives May two weeks to come up with the money and sort out the Irish border issue.

I guess that means that May will have to make the figure public?

The figure of 40 is being bandied about now

gloswhite wrote:The figure of 40 is being bandied about now

That'll be about right if the UK also gives up any claim on project assets in Europe that have previously been partially funded by the UK but because of the different perspectives on how the figure is to be calculated I reckon that once May comes up with a figure Tusk and Barnier may have a difficult job in getting agreement from all 27 members.
Interesting that the initial estimates were around the £18 billion mark but we've been gradually lulled into accepting that it's going to be a helluva lot more over the last 18 months, yet still they persist with the idea of ploughing ahead regardless. Begs the question that if we are going to embody EU law into our own as is proposed, are unlikely to get any of the immigration outcomes Leavers expected and end up paying over the odds for the privilege when the "it's what people voted for" argument will be dropped. Because nobody did vote for that.

gloswhite wrote:I like this XM. It shows a fair and sensible view of the shenanigans we keep hearing about.

I do try to only quote reasonably objective sources.

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:The figure of 40 is being bandied about now

That'll be about right if the UK also gives up any claim on project assets in Europe that have previously been partially funded by the UK but because of the different perspectives on how the figure is to be calculated I reckon that once May comes up with a figure Tusk and Barnier may have a difficult job in getting agreement from all 27 members.
Interesting that the initial estimates were around the £18 billion mark but we've been gradually lulled into accepting that it's going to be a helluva lot more over the last 18 months, yet still they persist with the idea of ploughing ahead regardless. Begs the question that if we are going to embody EU law into our own as is proposed, are unlikely to get any of the immigration outcomes Leavers expected and end up paying over the odds for the privilege when the "it's what people voted for" argument will be dropped. Because nobody did vote for that.

Heard a comment yesterday that many pro-brexit, (must admit, myself included), think the 40 or 50 billion isn't too bad, because we'll get it back through trade anyway, (don't know over what period), but as we've seen its more about politics , on both sides, than common sense. at the moment. 
It seems the French and Germans are now being looked on as too demanding, by the few countries that are putting most cash into the EU, as they will lose, by percentage, far more than the big two, and they aren't prepared to put up with much more.

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I like this XM. It shows a fair and sensible view of the shenanigans we keep hearing about.

I do try to only quote reasonably objective sources.

I know, I know, and you're doing a sterling job. 

Both you and Wander are excellent posters, just for the wrong side, (oh bugger, that'll set you both off   )

gloswhite wrote:
Heard a comment yesterday that many pro-brexit, (must admit, myself included), think the 40 or 50 billion isn't too bad, because we'll get it back through trade anyway, (don't know over what period), but as we've seen its more about politics , on both sides, than common sense. at the moment. 
It seems the French and Germans are now being looked on as too demanding, by the few countries that are putting most cash into the EU, as they will lose, by percentage, far more than the big two, and they aren't prepared to put up with much more.

I don't see how we are going to make a 40 to 50 billion pound surplus on trade after leaving the EU. What are we going to be exporting and to whom to generate this level of profit?

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:
Heard a comment yesterday that many pro-brexit, (must admit, myself included), think the 40 or 50 billion isn't too bad, because we'll get it back through trade anyway, (don't know over what period), but as we've seen its more about politics , on both sides, than common sense. at the moment. 
It seems the French and Germans are now being looked on as too demanding, by the few countries that are putting most cash into the EU, as they will lose, by percentage, far more than the big two, and they aren't prepared to put up with much more.

I don't see how we are going to make a 40 to 50 billion pound surplus on trade after leaving the EU. What are we going to be exporting and to whom to generate this level of profit?

Haven't a clue, but that is what I heard. I should have said that the way it was stated was that overall 40-50 billion is very small in the greater scheme of things..

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:
Heard a comment yesterday that many pro-brexit, (must admit, myself included), think the 40 or 50 billion isn't too bad, because we'll get it back through trade anyway, (don't know over what period), but as we've seen its more about politics , on both sides, than common sense. at the moment. 
It seems the French and Germans are now being looked on as too demanding, by the few countries that are putting most cash into the EU, as they will lose, by percentage, far more than the big two, and they aren't prepared to put up with much more.

I don't see how we are going to make a 40 to 50 billion pound surplus on trade after leaving the EU. What are we going to be exporting and to whom to generate this level of profit?

Haven't a clue, but that is what I heard. I should have said that the way it was stated was that overall 40-50 billion is very small in the greater scheme of things..

Was it written on the side of a red bus?