Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

I didn't see that in your original post. Nor do I mind cutting down on the beurocracy at the UN.

Step 2: "That's not what's going to happen, you're misrepresenting the policy, blah blah project fear"

Step 3b: "It's a fantastic idea and every progressive person should want it to happen"

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

Step 2: "That's not what's going to happen, you're misrepresenting the policy, blah blah project fear"

Step 3b: "It's a fantastic idea and every progressive person should want it to happen"

You'd probably get on better attacking the argument. Weren't brexiteers complaining the UN was obsolete last year?

I do see a similar flow with brexiteers, though.

1. That'll never happen, we hold all the cards.
2. That's what I wanted all along, prove I said otherwise


On the losing the veto thing, can anyone explain how we can lose a veto without giving it up, being that we can veto any such proposal, and qualified majority voting requires a consensus from each state, so we can veto a vote being done as qmv?
We're giving up our veto with Brexit (and we won't get it back), But infant see any route to it from remaining.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

You'd probably get on better attacking the argument.

I'd rather try to nail jelly to a wall. At least I could eat the jelly afterwards.

adindas

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

The following quite succinctly deals with the demonising of the EU by the brexiteers which seems to have been more popular than usual on here over the last few days:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/05/divorcing-eu-hard-brexiteersn-eurosceptics-brussels

Those who said we are losing friends like Nick Clegg will now shy away to repeat his statement referring EU as a friend.

What sort of friend is that if you will be considered friends as long as you keep becoming a cash cow.

Keep in mind Canada, Japan do not pay even a penny and UK although the second net largest contributors for many years will still need to pay another EUR39 bill which is not legally required.

The deal the Japan and Canada get is quite similar to the UK because UK trade deal will not involve any service product.

Which organisation punishing you for leaving ? It only a few exist. ISIS, mafioso type organisations.

phillw

adindas wrote: »

What sort of friend is that if you will be considered friends as long as you keep becoming a cash cow.

What sort of friend are you if you want to take advantage of your friends, but not help them out when they are in trouble?

The money we give to the EU is to our benefit both in the short and long term.

How do you not see that?

adindas wrote: »

The deal the Japan and Canada get is quite similar to the UK because UK trade deal will not involve any service product.

What particular deal are you talking about? The current UK deal on the table for the transition period has contributions and services, if we go no deal then we stop contributions and lose services.

If you're talking about the divorce bill, then part of that is settling the contributions we have deferred during our membership. In laymans terms it settles the IOU's. The red bus lie has really messed up the peoples understanding of what money we have actually given to the EU, we don't settle our bill in full every week like it suggests. The divorce bill itself is scheduled to be paid over a long period of time, so inflation will reduce it (I've not heard that it incurs interest either).

Herzlos wrote: »

You'd probably get on better attacking the argument.

No, the line has been drawn in the sand. Those who voted to leave in the face of facts aren't going to change their mind in the face of more facts, because it's not about facts at all. Some will give the real reason they voted to leave, abolishing the working time directive is a favourite among business owners, but others just cherry pick insignificant details as a reason.

The problem is that it's not a black/white issue, it relies on feelings and peoples feelings is they don't trust people who aren't us. My argument is you're taking the decisions out of the hands of a diverse group of people and putting it into the hands of the people who came up with Universal Credit and ESA assessements.

Herzlos

Fair point, I think I'm expecting too much.

adindas wrote: »

Keep in mind Canada, Japan do not pay even a penny

We were offered a copy of the Canada deal right at the start...
It violates Mays red lines regarding services. We did keep talking about a Canada+++ (essentially, a cake and eat it).

UK although the second net largest contributors for many years will still need to pay another EUR39 bill which is not legally required.

The bill is to cover our liabilities for joint projects within the EU. As far as I remember, Canada doesn't have any MEPs or pension liabilities, isn't involved in most of the EU projects and so on, ergo has no liabilities to cover.

Which organisation punishing you for leaving ?

Giving us literally what we're asking for is not punishment. We're only being punished by our own stupidity, the EU is being far more patient with us than we deserve at this stage.

Herzlos

adindas wrote: »

Keep in mind Canada, Japan do not pay a penny do not involve in FOM, do not bow to ECJ. Do not contribute like UK did in the EU. Keep in mind Future UK trade deal will not include services either.

A future trade deal for the UK may well include services, it's something we want.

So If UK is getting Canada style,but not paying EUR39bil (which is not legally required) + UK get the claim of the assets as the second net contributors it is fine. Is it the case ??

The £39bn bill is neither here nor there, it's in our interests to pay it.


But sure, if we chose the Canada deal, we'd lose access to services, the 4 freedoms and ECJ jurisdiction (outwith where it applies to trade). But losing services would cripple us, and we're back to the hard border in Ireland argument again.


I really don't care which option we take, but we need to pick one soon and be honest about it to the people it'll screw over, instead of pretending we can find a magical solution that will make everyone happy because it clearly doesn't exist.

MobileSaver

adindas wrote: »

EUR39 bil euro which is not legally required ... I am referring to what the UK parliament have said. I am referring to the International lawyers opnion, not interpreting the international law.

Are you referring to the House of Lords March 2017 report that has been debunked by legal experts and itself admits that there are "competing interpretations" of the legal position?

Or is there some other Parliament report that has not yet been debunked?

phillw

adindas wrote: »

Keep in mind Canada, Japan do not pay a penny do not involve in FOM, do not bow to ECJ. Do not contribute like UK did in the EU. Keep in mind Future UK trade deal will not include services either.

What could you possibly have against the ECJ?

Canada and Japan don't have the benefit of FOM either.

The UK contributed while it had the benefit of FOM, the ECJ and single market (and the divorce bill is settling those debts)

adindas wrote: »

UK is the second net largest financial contributors, one of the largest (if not the largest) contributors in Intelligent and security, defence.

Because we did so well out of being in the EU. Think of it like income tax, imagine you earn 1 million pounds a year and you look at someone on minimum wage and want to pay the tax he does, brexit is like dropping your salary to pay the lower tax bill.

adindas wrote: »

So If UK is getting Canada style,but not paying EUR39bil (which is not legally required) + UK get the claim of the assets as the second net contributors it is fine. Is it the case ??

What gives you the impression it's not legally required, because it's pretty clear that it is. What assets does the EU have that you want a share of? The money we gave was for things like regulatory agencies and investing into projects in countries that the EU doesn't retain owner ship of (some of which were in the UK)

You seem quite upset by something you don't understand.

adindas

phillw wrote: »

What gives you the impression it's not legally required, because it's pretty clear that it is. What assets does the EU have that you want a share of? The money we gave was for things like regulatory agencies and investing into projects in countries that the EU doesn't retain owner ship of (some of which were in the UK)

You seem quite upset by something you don't understand.

The benefit of FoM is another debate, especially if it will involve countries with different level of economy.

About EUR39bil, It is not my impression. It is not my opinion.

It has been discussed many times there are already various link about this.

UK is not "LEGALLY required to pay EUR39. If UK wanted to pay EUR39 it's just a gesture of good will in exchange of a good trade deal. Considering Canada, Japan do not pay a penny, do not bow to ECJ, do not involve in FoM, it is not a good deal.

Keep in mind the future trade deal that UK will get, it will not involve financial and other services.