Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying we don't want a good deal. Just that a bad deal is worse than no deal. You don't go into a negotiation on the basis that you are determined to deal no matter what and will never walk away.
Being happy with a bad deal is the same as being determined to deal no matter what.You miss the point as usual.
Nobody is going to be happy with a bad deal, which is why there won't be a deal at all if we get offered a bad one.
Disastrous said:
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying we don't want a good deal. Just that a bad deal is worse than no deal. You don't go into a negotiation on the basis that you are determined to deal no matter what and will never walk away.
Being happy with a bad deal is the same as being determined to deal no matter what.You miss the point as usual.
Nobody is going to be happy with a bad deal, which is why there won't be a deal at all if we get offered a bad one.
I actually dont think he is taking the piss.
Mrr T said:
As you wish but he is better than 100% of the MSM.
Interesting today he highlights the Malta PM has said the commitment could be €60bn.
Are you suggesting we ignore our treaty obligations. If you are then you can forget signing new trade treaties
He all but is MSM, just without the logo.Interesting today he highlights the Malta PM has said the commitment could be €60bn.
Are you suggesting we ignore our treaty obligations. If you are then you can forget signing new trade treaties
It doesn't surprise me that the Maltese PM would be pushing that. Hypothetically speaking, if our net contribution was washed evenly across remaining states, guess who would be very, very likely to cross the divide between net recipient and net contributor
I have absolutely no doubt that every one of the 27 remaining states will be coming up with very large numbers that we "owe". 60bn is effectively 6yrs of our net contributions continuing, so more can kicking by them. If our negotiating team have any sense, that sort of number will be laughed at (at least without some distinct benefit/qpq).
I'm suggesting that EU treaties won't necessarily apply to us once we are no longer in the EU. And that things change all the time, especially long term ones. If we aren't able to reach a decent trade deal with the EU then that side of your closing argument disappears. Though of course there is a risk that other nations might be disinclined to enter into deals with us if we are perceived to have reneged. How real that risk is will depend on the details of what it is we refuse to continue to contribute towards. And how other counterparts feel towards the EU vv us.
Edited by Murph7355 on Friday 20th January 14:22
768 said:
blindswelledrat said:
You say that losing the UKs net contribution reduces the EU budget by 12.5% and that the link proves that.
All I say, yet again 
, is the document seems to show the UK's contribution to the EU (2017 draft) budget, accounting for the rebate, is 12.5%....
Look at the word in bold that I think is missing from the table you posted
Mrr T said:
As you wish but he is better than 100% of the MSM....
OK. I read Monograph 3 (http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/BrexitMonograph003.pdf). Half wish I hadn't.This is on the first page.
R North Monograph 3 said:
As to estimating the actual amount which will be paid, this will depend on the nature of the exit settlement. But it cannot be zero. The UK is a contributor to a number of ongoing EU programmes vital to British interests. Funding for these, at the very least, will have to be continued...
So what any outstanding monies will be needs to be negotiated. Though anything that is vital to British interests would be daft to stop (I agree with him on that one).There are bits later in it which contradict this in elements, (e.g. if we enter into a WTO arrangement, some payments can quite justifiably be nil). He is also welded to making extrapolations from Norway's agreement. He is fixated on his view that this is the only game in town. That is patently not the case and never was if one could be objective. Which having read a most of these now I suspect he cannot be.
Later in Monograph 3 his figure comes out at something like 8bn a year. Though a lot of that is predicated on multi-annual arrangements that run to 2020. As we won't be leaving until 2019, I make that an extra year of payments at worst IF we need to continue down that path (should EU institutions freeze our companies/research establishments out of projects then who has broken arrangements first? etc).
He does go on to note that we could (he uses words like that a LOT) get embroiled in extended multi-annual arrangements out to 2027...but as we have handed our cards in (or will have very soon), why in God's name would we do that! Other than to suit a view point if you were writing a paper.
I am personally not against payments/fees if there are tangible benefits. I paid £25 to the RFU to become a "XV club" member and now have 4x 6 Nations tickets (albeit to Italy, but still). I wouldn't get sufficient benefit from the fuller fees but there was a tangible one from a reduced subscription. I fully expect that to be the eventual outcome with our arrangement with the EU. And that will be fair enough IF we can be properly clear on the benefits
North is, I suspect, an intelligent man. He's evidently well versed in the wording of many of our arrangements with the EU. But the way he pieces them together is as far from objectively done as it's possible to get, the logic he uses is very hit and miss and everything is couched in ifs, buts and maybes. That's all that was coming out in campaigning up to 23rd June. That sort of thing stood little scrutiny then and I'm not sure things have improved with the benefit of some hindsight.
Noting that the contribution from the vast majority of member States is quite small, the loss of the UK's contribution is significant for the EU, and will have to be made up by Germany, France and Italy, I wonder how that will go down domestically? Spreading out the shortfall by putting a half a percent onto all the others isn't going to be possible, as it will be doubling or even trebling their contribution.
It reminds me of the beer and taxes skit, and one of the big payers ain't showing up no more.
It reminds me of the beer and taxes skit, and one of the big payers ain't showing up no more.
Mrr T said:
As you wish but he is better than 100% of the MSM.
Interesting today he highlights the Malta PM has said the commitment could be €60bn.
Are you suggesting we ignore our treaty obligations. If you are then you can forget signing new trade treaties
Yeah, the EU is big on respecting treaty obligations, like, for example, not bailing out member states.Interesting today he highlights the Malta PM has said the commitment could be €60bn.
Are you suggesting we ignore our treaty obligations. If you are then you can forget signing new trade treaties
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 20th January 13:07
But hey, when it gets serious, you have to lie, right?
Disastrous said:
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Nobody is saying we don't want a good deal. Just that a bad deal is worse than no deal. You don't go into a negotiation on the basis that you are determined to deal no matter what and will never walk away.
Being happy with a bad deal is the same as being determined to deal no matter what.You miss the point as usual.
Nobody is going to be happy with a bad deal, which is why there won't be a deal at all if we get offered a bad one.
jonnyb said:
I know...440m people is quite a large group, isn't it 
What I think this thread needs is somebody to blame. Who caused this awful awful disastrous catastrophe. Well, apparently there is someone......
Tony Blair to blame for Brexit, says Philip Hammond
http://news.sky.com/story/tony-blair-to-blame-for-...
Tony Blair to blame for Brexit, says Philip Hammond
http://news.sky.com/story/tony-blair-to-blame-for-...
768 said:
blindswelledrat said:
You say that losing the UKs net contribution reduces the EU budget by 12.5% and that the link proves that.
All I say, yet again , is the document seems to show the UK's contribution to the EU (2017 draft) budget, accounting for the rebate, is 12.5%.]Either
1) You are lying about your maths degree and in fact failed your gsce maths or
2) You realised some time ago that I was actually right and are so mentally stubborn that instead of saying "Oh yes, you're right. Sorry" you desperately try and find anything, anywhere which might skew some figures somewhere to make it seem like you were less wrong than you were.
In either case, lets just forget this argument as it is circular.
On one hand you are not going to change your mind and on the other I am definitely correct and know for a fact that you are s
t at maths. We've run out of things to say to each other.Murph7355 said:
768 said:
blindswelledrat said:
You say that losing the UKs net contribution reduces the EU budget by 12.5% and that the link proves that.
All I say, yet again , is the document seems to show the UK's contribution to the EU (2017 draft) budget, accounting for the rebate, is 12.5%....
Look at the word in bold that I think is missing from the table you posted
Disastrous said:
I concede I may have missed the headline announcing your appointment...
Unsurprisingly it's not very clear what you're talking about. I assume you do know that should we not be able to negotiate a good deal we will walk away without one? I know that must be very hard to accept, but it's true. You appear to be in denial......bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
I concede I may have missed the headline announcing your appointment...
Unsurprisingly it's not very clear what you're talking about. I assume you do know that should we not be able to negotiate a good deal we will walk away without one? I know that must be very hard to accept, but it's true. You appear to be in denial......t would be better than the EU, and claiming that you want a good deal. Or something. You're so muddled that nobody really knows what you mean. I assume the gist of your position is that so long as we leave the EU, a return to feudalism would be palatable. Not in my name mate: I want the best for my country.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff