I have a growing feeling that Britain will NOT leave the EU

The_Last_Username

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do the europeans think the UK gets a 'better' deal : don't they think that closer convergence and the Euro is better than what the UK has?

I think what gfplux is also not recognising is that these very EU countries are using the UK as nothing more than a cash cow.
Not that I am suggesting the UK is alone in this but no one can reasonably deny the UK being a major contributor to EU coffers.
Where will these billions come from when the UK leaves?

Some seem insistent upon using annual contrubution figures, totally disregarding the extra payments which the EU demands of the UK purely because we are doing so well!
£1.7 billion on 2014.
With a chart on who paid what (take note of countries reducing payment):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
In total extra payments for that year, £1.9 billion was paid as of October 2015.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/10/23/how-much-extra-did-the-uk-have-to-pay-the-eu/

Also you would think it quite straighforward to determine payments made and received, right?
Not so.
What we get instead is along the lines of "ah but we get this grant and that subsidy" .............. so that accurate figures are never forthcoming or are at best years late in being arrived at.
Why is that, does anyone think?
Not because we are really paying much more than we are being told, perhaps?

Countries' contributions are based on their economic output. The amount the UK contributed last year was based on forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
We won't know whether that was the right amount until December this year, and the figures are occasionally revised years later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

I agree.

I don't actually see the benefit of laying out the UK negotiating strategy before our European colleagues.

Someone like Juncker would always seek to hide as much behind closed doors as possible.

In fact, I think a good approach is to identify the weakest links in the European Union and make sure you target those.

Did I say that?

The arrogance is that we routinely consult the population about small things like changing the traffic lights at a junction, but we are not consulting either the public or Parliament about their views on Brexit. That is nothing to do with the Government revealing its negotiating strategy. It is about the Government listing to the arguments of MPs on what Brexit means, and taking them into account.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Did I say that?

The arrogance is that we routinely consult the population about small things like changing the traffic lights at a junction, but we are not consulting either the public or Parliament about their views on Brexit. That is nothing to do with the Government revealing its negotiating strategy. It is about the Government listing to the arguments of MPs on what Brexit means, and taking them into account.

that is only based on your wish to stop or emasculate brexit

Ballard

Intoodeep wrote: »

Likewise was the Emergency Budget that would have had us all going to hell in a handcart promised by the remainer Gideon a barefaced lie, you must have something more important in your life to worry about ??

How about 'Turkey will soon join the EU'?

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

I agree.

I don't actually see the benefit of laying out the UK negotiating strategy before our European colleagues.

Someone like Juncker would always seek to hide as much behind closed doors as possible.

I agree. Shame then that some of it has now been leaked. Seriously, who leaves a top secret meeting with their notes on show? Do they never learn?

CLAPTON

Ballard wrote: »

How about 'Turkey will soon join the EU'?

only people would aren't comfortable outside the white christian boys club, would consider such a statement as some sort of threat

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

Did I say that?

The arrogance is that we routinely consult the population about small things like changing the traffic lights at a junction, but we are not consulting either the public or Parliament about their views on Brexit. That is nothing to do with the Government revealing its negotiating strategy. It is about the Government listing to the arguments of MPs on what Brexit means, and taking them into account.

The point about not consulting is patently untrue.

I can't think of any other single issue which has been under the public microscope as much.

The voting results have been dissected every which way, and people routinely argue about what this means on all social media.

We actually know the key issues in the UK voters' minds.

What we do not know are they key issues from the EU side.

Why not start negotiations; identify the relative positions of both parties; and then take a couple of weeks break to summarise and present back to parliament.

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

You should understand that many Europeans voters were shocked that Britain voted to leave the EU as they consider that Britain already had a better deal than anyone else and there is no stomach by Politicians (in power or yet to be elected) to add extra concessions and alienate their electorate.

There is no such thing as a common position from the EU electorate, precisely because of the national political structures which sit between the EU and the citizens.

Citizens in Poland probably don't give a stuff about the potential loss of fishing rights faced by Spanish fisherman. In turn, those same fishermen aren't too bothered about German manufacturers selling premium automobiles to the UK.

All I know is that the views of these individual voters still have value. I suspect the top tier of Eurocrats have actually forgotten this. When was there an EU wide referendum on the overall direction of the EU?

gfplux

The_Last_Username wrote: »

I think what gfplux is also not recognising is that these very EU countries are using the UK as nothing more than a cash cow.
Not that I am suggesting the UK is alone in this but no one can reasonably deny the UK being a major contributor to EU coffers.
Where will these billions come from when the UK leaves?

Some seem insistent upon using annual contrubution figures, totally disregarding the extra payments which the EU demands of the UK purely because we are doing so well!
£1.7 billion on 2014.
With a chart on who paid what (take note of countries reducing payment):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
In total extra payments for that year, £1.9 billion was paid as of October 2015.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/10/23/how-much-extra-did-the-uk-have-to-pay-the-eu/

Also you would think it quite straighforward to determine payments made and received, right?
Not so.
What we get instead is along the lines of "ah but we get this grant and that subsidy" .............. so that accurate figures are never forthcoming or are at best years late in being arrived at.
Why is that, does anyone think?
Not because we are really paying much more than we are being told, perhaps?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

If it were true then the phrase should be WERE USING THE UK AS A CASH COW.
As in your opinion Britain is leaving.
It might be a double bluff but no one from the EU side has mentioned the money.
It seems to me the EU loosing Britains contribution will mean a leaner and fitter EU. Not a bad thing.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

If it were true then the phrase should be WERE USING THE UK AS A CASH COW.
As in your opinion Britain is leaving.
It might be a double bluff but no one from the EU side has mentioned the money.
It seems to me the EU loosing Britains contribution will mean a leaner and fitter EU. Not a bad thing.

No, the phrase is 'are' paying as we will be paying for 2/3 years more.
But its good to see that you now see brexit as a good thing from both the UK and the EU27 points of view.