Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrisd said:
Rubbish - the audience groaned every time he mentioned General Election
Click to expand...
And applauded almost everything else he said.
The did not groan at scary women though, they booed and yelled. Did you miss that bit.

That's Westminster politics for you ATM the two extremes of left and right shouting and yelling at each other. Sad situation for a once proud nation.
 
Blue in Munich said:
Question; if, as it appears, our political masters are determined to keep us in, how much would remaining in cost us? I'm sure Macron & Merkel would welcome our money with open arms if the decision was made, but on what terms would we return; same as we left on; receive some concessions; or be punished for our cheek?
Click to expand...

Good question(s). If the EU didn't change, then the budget contributions would remain the same till 2021, when the new budget starts. The proposed increase to £22bn; that's still up for debate and approval in the EU parliament. I doubt it will go through at that level but who knows.

The cost of an EU army, and the position of EU chancellor; The cost of admin depts for both won't come cheap. Would the specification of an EU army mean increasing the size of our armed forces? Who knows. But in both cases its not just cost. Who says there has to be a deployment of the EU army? What would the new financial controls look like that the EU chancellor would have?

And then there's the potential increasing size of the EU and what the funding arrangements would be? Would there be more takers than givers? How many countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses etc have robust economies?

As a trading bloc, which lots of Remainers bleat about losing, its great. But its not just a trading bloc anymore.
 
SocketRocket said:
I think I could almost accept this deal except for us having to apply minimum tariffs to the levels of those used by the EU. This is not making us an independent country but one where our international trade is still regulated by the EU.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole document but is the restriction on setting our own tariffs just during the transition and backstop phases or is it written as a permanent thing? If it's the former then I can understand it but the latter would surely cross one of May's red lines for being able to negotiate our own trade deals.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Ardent Leave proponent just interviewed by Shelagh Fogarty - told by Shelagh that the EU are saying today that there is no revising of the current draft Withdrawal Agreement - that enabling revisions to help May sort out her internal political issues is not for the EU.

When the Leaver is asked why get rid of May and put someone else in place to renegotiate the agreement - he replies - 'well they would say that' The denial is astonishing.

And we learn that Angela Leadsom - supposedly a supporter of May and the agreement - is said to be getting a working group together to re-write the draft Brexit Withdrawal Agreement over the next week. Right. OK. Rewrite the agreement for what reason - given the EU are saying - no revisions. I suppose they could wave it in front of the Great British public and claim that this is what the agreement could have looked like - and still could? What about the EU Angela...?

Good luck Angela. Nice to get sight of your duplicity.
Click to expand...

Reports today that France are leading a group of EU member states, including Netherlands, Spain, Denmark and Portugal, calling for changes to the agreement with regards to fishing rights. Seems a bit rich considering yesterday a French minister was warning that if the UK didn't accept the deal as agreed we would face "economic disaster". I assume SiLH will be sticking to his principles and demanding no revisions from the EU.
 
ColchesterFC said:
I haven't read the whole document but is the restriction on setting our own tariffs just during the transition and backstop phases or is it written as a permanent thing? If it's the former then I can understand it but the latter would surely cross one of May's red lines for being able to negotiate our own trade deals.
Click to expand...
I believe it to be permanent. We would also not be able to subsidise industries. Looks like it stitches us up in many areas including security sharing where we would have to pay in the transition and have no right after, bit rich seeing most of the intelligence comes from us with the best security services. No Deal for me.
 
SocketRocket said:
I believe it to be permanent. We would also not be able to subsidise industries. Looks like it stitches us up in many areas including security sharing where we would have to pay in the transition and have no right after, bit rich seeing most of the intelligence comes from us with the best security services. No Deal for me.
Click to expand...

If that is correct then how can anyone say that we will be agreeing our own trade deals and will have actually left the EU? It's like divorcing your wife and agreeing that she gets to decide who you are allowed to date after the divorce.
 
Hobbit said:
Good question(s). If the EU didn't change, then the budget contributions would remain the same till 2021, when the new budget starts. The proposed increase to £22bn; that's still up for debate and approval in the EU parliament. I doubt it will go through at that level but who knows.

The cost of an EU army, and the position of EU chancellor; The cost of admin depts for both won't come cheap. Would the specification of an EU army mean increasing the size of our armed forces? Who knows. But in both cases its not just cost. Who says there has to be a deployment of the EU army? What would the new financial controls look like that the EU chancellor would have?

And then there's the potential increasing size of the EU and what the funding arrangements would be? Would there be more takers than givers? How many countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses etc have robust economies?

As a trading bloc, which lots of Remainers bleat about losing, its great. But its not just a trading bloc anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree.

If we rejoined, as Remainers would love, - how long before the sterling became the Euro and the ECB and Frankfurt decided the 'City' was dissolved?

EU wide defence forces are unmanageable. An EU 'Army' would be hog-tied by the '27' tortuous decision process - at a time when agility is the key to operations. I'm assuming when they say EU Army they are including Air and Naval forces but I'm not sure and have no confidence that the EU members can make a significant contribution.
 
There is so much that is wrong with this 'deal' that I cannot envisage anyone accepting it! There are too many 'still permanently tied to EU' clauses imo. Nothing wrong with ties during a 'transition' period - especially if that period is actually specified.

There is no way this 'deal' will be accepted by Parliament, which might - in the back of her mind - be exactly what May is trying to achieve.

If some sort of consensus 'deal' was created, that would be acceptable to Parliament (created through the parliamentary process), then she could go back to the EU with a 'UK offer'. Not sure either whether that is likely/possible nor whether such a 'deal' would be agreed to by the EU.

The thought of an EU Army horrifies me - for several reasons!
 
drive4show said:
A good deal is:

1) We make our own laws
2) We trade freely with the EU and the rest of the world
3) We set our own immigration policy


Not exactly rocket science but the EU are determined to prevent that.
Click to expand...

1. I'm still interested to hear of one single EU Law that overwrites UK Law that people have a problem with. Plus, on the flip side as soon as the UK is out of the EU, we are no longer involved in the rule-writing process and thus potentially make us a less attractive location for foreign investment.
2. There is no better trade deal with the EU than we have now within the Single Market. If we want to be in the Single Market but not in the EU, i.e. Norway like deal then you have have to sacrifice a lot of things e.g. accept free movement of people. We could possibly negotiate a Canada style deal to get rid of a lot of the tariffs and get access to the Single Market without FoM, but the problem with that is it doesn't cover services, which is a rather dominant part of the UK economy. Negotiating that deal would take years and we still wouldn't have as good a deal as we have now.
3. Setting aside the absolute fact that EU immigration was beneficial to the UK economy versus non- EU immigration, which we have complete control over, that has a negative effect on the economy, whilst a member of the EU, the UK has the powers to limit EU immigration, but the government simply didn't use it. According to the EU, citizens must be self supporting after 3-months, i.e. working, a member of the family working or have sufficient funds to live (and have sickness insurance). If not they can be returned to their home country. Unfortunately the UK does not register migrants as they arrive, so we have no way of knowing how long they have been in the country. I'm not sure how that is the EUs fault?

In response to your last sentence, the EU will do whatever they need to protect their existing members. They are not going to agree to a deal with the UK that gives us all the benefits with non of the cost. We are in the weaker position here. It is why the negotiations have been so difficult and the one May has presented is pretty much as good as it can get if we want to leave (with some exceptions I'm sure).

The problem is this deal is hard to swallow on both sides as it's almost like a "EU lite". I'm sure it will be rejected and the economy will almost certainly tank with a no deal outcome until we get things sorted. Let's just hope it isn't too long. Rees-Mogg reckons 50 years. Oh joy.
 
woody69 said:
1. I'm still interested to hear of one single EU Law that overwrites UK Law that people have a problem with. Plus, on the flip side as soon as the UK is out of the EU, we are no longer involved in the rule-writing process and thus potentially make us a less attractive location for foreign investment.
2. There is no better trade deal with the EU than we have now within the Single Market. If we want to be in the Single Market but not in the EU, i.e. Norway like deal then you have have to sacrifice a lot of things e.g. accept free movement of people. We could possibly negotiate a Canada style deal to get rid of a lot of the tariffs and get access to the Single Market without FoM, but the problem with that is it doesn't cover services, which is a rather dominant part of the UK economy. Negotiating that deal would take years and we still wouldn't have as good a deal as we have now.
3. Setting aside the absolute fact that EU immigration was beneficial to the UK economy versus non- EU immigration, which we have complete control over, that has a negative effect on the economy, whilst a member of the EU, the UK has the powers to limit EU immigration, but the government simply didn't use it. According to the EU, citizens must be self supporting after 3-months, i.e. working, a member of the family working or have sufficient funds to live (and have sickness insurance). If not they can be returned to their home country. Unfortunately the UK does not register migrants as they arrive, so we have no way of knowing how long they have been in the country. I'm not sure how that is the EUs fault?

In response to your last sentence, the EU will do whatever they need to protect their existing members. They are not going to agree to a deal with the UK that gives us all the benefits with non of the cost. We are in the weaker position here. It is why the negotiations have been so difficult and the one May has presented is pretty much as good as it can get if we want to leave (with some exceptions I'm sure).

The problem is this deal is hard to swallow on both sides as it's almost like a "EU lite". I'm sure it will be rejected and the economy will almost certainly tank with a no deal outcome until we get things sorted. Let's just hope it isn't too long. Rees-Mogg reckons 50 years. Oh joy.
Click to expand...


Not my fault if you ignore posts that state the objections.... or you live down a hole!

Also interested in your comments on Guy’s version of the Nuremberg Address! ;)
 
Last edited:
IanM said:
Not my fault if you ignore posts that state the objections.... or you live down a hole!

Also interested in your comments on Guy’s version of the Nuremberg Address! ;)
Click to expand...
I haven't read any posts that provide specifics, just high level objections such as "make our own laws", or "control immigration". Perhaps I missed the specifics. Would you be able to perhaps point me to them

What do you want me to say about it? Verhofstadt doesn't help his cause with a lot of his public statements? The replies to the tweet are xenophobic? Comparing Verhofstadt, a Belgian citizen to Hitler means they lose Godwins law straight away and it's probably deeply offensive to Belgians who were invaded and occupied by the Germans? Or the irony, that if the UK had remained within the EU we would have used our veto to stop any motion of an EU army being formed?
 
woody69 said:
I haven't read any posts that provide specifics, just high level objections such as "make our own laws", or "control immigration". Perhaps I missed the specifics. Would you be able to perhaps point me to them

What do you want me to say about it? Verhofstadt doesn't help his cause with a lot of his public statements? The replies to the tweet are xenophobic? Comparing Verhofstadt, a Belgian citizen to Hitler means they lose Godwins law straight away and it's probably deeply offensive to Belgians who were invaded and occupied by the Germans? Or the irony, that if the UK had remained within the EU we would have used our veto to stop any motion of an EU army being formed?
Click to expand...

The UK could use its veto to stop any motion for an EU army. In fact, UK law, as well as Irish law, clearly states that a referendum would be needed before the UK and Ireland could a support an EU army.

Sounds great. No chance of an EU army then.......... or is that really the case?

The EU foreign and security policy already exists. The EU can already call on its member states to provide armed forces for defence and peace keeping. EU armed forces, controlled by Fredrica Mogherini who is an EU High Commissioner, operates on 3 continents. Why is the EU providing a peace keeping force on 3 continents? Why isn't the UN or NATO? What conflicts are the member states being dragged into?

The member states, having agreed to a peacekeeping operation unanimously the EU High Commission, since 1999, only needs a qualified majority to extend those operations. The veto is worthless.

But why are the EU now asking for an EU army when they already have a security force? What extension to its current remit needs more central control? And if it is vetoed will it continue to extend the current Foreign and Security policy - note, "continue."

Its been said many times by many people. Countries are sleepwalking into a federal superstate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
8K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top