Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[ColchesterFC]

One big example is 114million euros a year it costs to move to Strasbourg once a month.

Even as a supporter of us staying in the EU it's things like this example that make it difficult to defend our continued membership. It's a clear and obvious waste of money just to appease the French. The EU (and the UK government) need to look at where money is being wasted. Both need to realise that if they cut out the unnecessary spending they could do so much more with the money they receive.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Even as a supporter of us staying in the EU it's things like this example that make it difficult to defend our continued membership. It's a clear and obvious waste of money just to appease the French. The EU (and the UK government) need to look at where money is being wasted. Both need to realise that if they cut out the unnecessary spending they could do so much more with the money they receive.

And members might be less inclined to leave...

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Pie in the sky mate, we will still be paying money to the EU after we have left...
The all encompassing FTA wont be free...

Not forever, the period will be agreed then cease.

 

[robinthehood]

Not forever, the period will be agreed then cease.

There'll be ongoing payments forever.
The FTA won't be free.

 

[harpo_72]

Stop paying the Brexit MEPs and delete Farage’s pension - every little counts 😎👍

 

[robinthehood]

In what way?

Depends on our long term arrangements with the EU.

 

[Hobbit]

Not forever, the period will be agreed then cease.

Norway pays just under €900m per year, set to rise at the end of next year. Switzerland pays €1.1bn a year, set to rise at the end of next year. The UK's payments, at the current rate, run till the end of 2020. After that they reduce till the end of 2028 on a sliding scale. Quite what the UK will pay for access for trade, see Norway and Switzerland above, who knows but it won't be nothing.

Canada and Japan pay nothing for access.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Norway pays just under €900m per year, set to rise at the end of next year. Switzerland pays €1.1bn a year, set to rise at the end of next year. The UK's payments, at the current rate, run till the end of 2020. After that they reduce till the end of 2028 on a sliding scale. Quite what the UK will pay for access for trade, see Norway and Switzerland above, who knows but it won't be nothing.

Canada and Japan pay nothing for access.

Surely that’s paying under a deal we want to agree to, which of course we don’t have to.
That’s different to a “membership” payment that we currently have no choice.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Stop paying the Brexit MEPs and delete Farage’s pension - every little counts 😎👍

We can't. We're still members of the EU so we have to keep paying for our MEPs. Unless or until we leave then we have to respect our responsibilities.

Although if you'd suggested that MI5 had "deleted" Farage then you would have had my full support. 👍

 

[harpo_72]

We can't. We're still members of the EU so we have to keep paying for our MEPs. Unless or until we leave then we have to respect our responsibilities.

Although if you'd suggested that MI5 had "deleted" Farage then you would have had my full support. 👍

I have heard the Duke of Edinburgh is the man to ask about little jobs like that

 

[ColchesterFC]

Norway pays just under €900m per year, set to rise at the end of next year. Switzerland pays €1.1bn a year, set to rise at the end of next year. The UK's payments, at the current rate, run till the end of 2020. After that they reduce till the end of 2028 on a sliding scale. Quite what the UK will pay for access for trade, see Norway and Switzerland above, who knows but it won't be nothing.

Canada and Japan pay nothing for access.

Norway's population is around 5 million, Switzerland's population is around 8.5 million. Our population of 80 million (ish) makes us 10x more attractive as a market so out contribution should be much lower.

 

[robinthehood]

Norway's population is around 5 million, Switzerland's population is around 8.5 million. Our population of 80 million (ish) makes us 10x more attractive as a market so out contribution should be much lower.

The reverse is likely to be true.

 

[ColchesterFC]

The reverse is likely to be true.

Not if our negotiators are any good and do what they are paid to do. So yes, in all likelihood, having seen the balls up they've made of the Brexit negotiations, I agree with you.

 

[Hobbit]

Surely that’s paying under a deal we want to agree to, which of course we don’t have to.
That’s different to a “membership” payment that we currently have no choice.

Will there be a choice? If £274bn worth of trade is with the EU, and the UK has a choice of pay up and ensure a trade deal or say no and bankrupt almost half the trade in the UK? I suppose it could be argued that the UK then blocks EU trade into the UK. But that takes us back to the arguments that have gone on in here for over 3 years. No one really knows the answer.

 

[Hobbit]

Norway's population is around 5 million, Switzerland's population is around 8.5 million. Our population of 80 million (ish) makes us 10x more attractive as a market so out contribution should be much lower.

Or pay 10x more?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Will there be a choice? If £48bn worth of trade is with the EU, and the UK has a choice of pay up and ensure a trade deal or say no and bankrupt almost half the trade in the UK? I suppose it could be argued that the UK then blocks EU trade into the UK. But that takes us back to the arguments that have gone on in here for over 3 years. No one really knows the answer.

Agreed Bri, my point is, you’d hope the price is an agreed figure that the UK is happy to pay, that’s a different scenario to what we have now.

 

[Hobbit]

Agreed Bri, my point is, you’d hope the price is an agreed figure that the UK is happy to pay, that’s a different scenario to what we have now.

If it matches Norway and Switzerland pro-rata the UK would pay around £6.5bn per year. I suppose it saves, currently, £4.5bn. But then there's the reducing outstanding payments. No savings in the first 8? years. Probably paying even more in the first few years. Who knows?

 

[Foxholer]

You’re wrong, here’s one bit of evidence of what the Leave Campaign said.
View attachment 28482
edit: Bit more what we were told:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org...ablishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html

If you were gullible enough to believe that propaganda, particularly while also stating you know (knew) what Article 50 contained, there's not a lot of point discussing it - it's your own fault for not checking that drivel out.

In fact, I remember poo-poo-ing that ad, or one very like it, for precisely that reason on this very forum!

As I stated in the post you quoted....

'All parties were aware that NO NEGOTIATIONS would happen until Article 50 was triggered - as per Clause 2!'

The fact that the Leave organisation chose to spout complete twaddle about negotiating a deal before invoking A50 - and you believed it - simply demonstrates your gullibility!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If you were gullible enough to believe that propaganda, particularly while also stating you know (knew) what Article 50 contained, there's not a lot of point discussing it - it's your own fault for not checking that drivel out.

In fact, I remember poo-poo-ing that ad, or one very like it, for precisely that reason on this very forum!

As I stated in the post you quoted....

'All parties were aware that NO NEGOTIATIONS would happen until Article 50 was triggered - as per Clause 2!'

The fact that the Leave organisation chose to spout complete twaddle about negotiating a deal before invoking A50 - and you believed it - simply demonstrates your gullibility!

I suggest you have a read of this.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-uk-lost-brexit-eu-negotiation/amp/

It ran counter to declarations by the U.K.’s victorious Vote Leave campaign not to be bound by the formal exit procedure. If the U.K. agreed to the terms of its departure before its future relationship was settled, the Brexit campaigners had argued, it would deprive itself of much of its leverage.

“Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop,” read the official Brexit campaign’s prospectus — endorsed by two of the political leaders of the campaign, then Justice Secretary Michael Gove and the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson. “We will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave.”

So I guess the 52% were gullible.

I accept the EU played a blinder in this, but to suggest No Deal was well known or widely known is rubbish.

Isn’t all campaigning propoganda?

It wasn’t an add it was a page from the prospectus and was what people expected to happen, TM tried for months to have talks and the EU slammed the door on it, just another example of her weak leadership

 

[Foxholer]

I suggest you have a read of this.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-uk-lost-brexit-eu-negotiation/amp/
...

So bleedin' what!

When are you going to absorb my previous statement -- All parties knew that A50 needed to be invoked first!
EU simply applied the Rules.

Do you ignore/object to those Golf ones that happen to be inconvenient for you?

...
Isn’t all campaigning propoganda?
...

No! At least not my interpretation of 'propaganda'.
Though some certainly borders/is!

Read more at https://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/t...he-phoenix.97927/page-815#FdooHoRcmgjuvKxh.99