How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)

[Crackie]

Vaud said:

SpeckledJim said:

- Damage to UK democracy and international credibility: Enormous

Most Europeans would think "daft idea to leave in the first place..."

Why do you make up complete and utter drivel like this? The evidence says nothing of the kind.

The vast majority of Europeans, 66% of them, do not like the direction the Commission is taking the EU. 71% of the EU's own Parliament have called for Selmayr's resignation. Read what the evidence is telling you about the current status rather what you would like it to be.

Even though 2/3 are not happy with the direction of travel, fewer than 50% actually want to leave the EU. Do you think the ones that want to remain are contributors or beneficiaries? Poland and Hungary et al are not going to leave whilst Germany, the UK, the Netherlands ( and occasionally the French ) are building their shiny new infrastructure for them.

https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019...

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 12th February 16:46

[Sway]

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

SpeckledJim said:

youngsyr said:

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

youngsyr said:

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

This is the exact same logical fallacy that you brought to bear the other day with your 'Greece and Italy haven't collapsed already so they won't collapse in the future' treatise.

Do you think perhaps you're not very imaginative when it comes to envisaging change?

How is it a logical fallacy?

My belief is simply that if the US hasn't found a solution to an electronic border, despite a massive incentive to do so, then the chances of our government, the Irish government or the EU sorting one out in short order are non-existant.

Who would you back to get any issue that has a commercial impact solved - 100 years of the US government or 2 years of the EU government?

I'd back whoever is actually under pressure to do it. No pressure = no action.

The USA is a weird combination of bleeding edge, and complete dinosaur. Especially at the govt. level. The EU is a wobbly blob of obfuscation and muddled responsibility, multiplied by 28 competing interests.

The failure of the US government and EU to do something is almost a recommendation, so hopeless are they at bringing about change.

Pressure, if brought to bear, will cut the crap and get something done.

Especially when only a tiny fraction of the US/Canada trade will be crossing the land border - and that moving by air or sea is handled far more efficiently by the same sort of processes we also use at container ports and airports...

[Helicopter123]

Dr Jekyll said:

Helicopter123 said:

Brexit Plan B: "Revoke Article 50"

- Cost: £0
- Saving vs no deal mitigation: £billions
- Planning time: none
- Additional preparations: none
- Soldiers on streets: 0
- Fake ferry companies involved: 0
- Irish border situation: 100% resolved
- Passport colour: any

• This is currently the top posted comment on the BBC website.

Edited by Helicopter123 on Tuesday 12th February 16:12

Just how many billions would they charge us in budget contributions if we decided it was impossible ever to leave?

Our net contribution is currently £9bn.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-...

Our 'divorce settlement' is £39bn.

Let's spend the saving on the NHS

[WeCumTitVillage]

Helicopter123 said:

Brexit Plan B: "Revoke Article 50"

- Cost: £0
- Saving vs no deal mitigation: £billions
- Planning time: none
- Additional preparations: none
- Soldiers on streets: 0
- Fake ferry companies involved: 0
- Irish border situation: 100% resolved
- Passport colour: any

• This is currently the top posted comment on the BBC website.

Edited by Helicopter123 on Tuesday 12th February 16:12

Point of ever voting for anything ever again with the hope politicians will fulfill it - zero.

Genius plan. Let's see if mx5 boy turns up shortly to endorse your idea

[Murph7355]

youngsyr said:

How is it a logical fallacy?

My belief is simply that if the US hasn't found a solution to an electronic border, despite a massive incentive to do so, then the chances of our government, the Irish government or the EU sorting one out in short order are non-existant.

Who would you back to get any issue that has a commercial impact solved - 100 years of the US government or 2 years of the EU government?

Does London have a mass transit transport system like, say, Seoul's?

Why is there a massive incentive for the US/Canads to do so? There is no Canadian/US terrorism angle as far as I'm aware (despite South Park) and the goods will be moving significant distances so the overhead time isn't going to be huge. What they have works, so why fix it?

I'm working on a project at present that will make life much easier, quicker and automated for the task at hand. For new implementations it's the dog's. But there is no business case for replacing "old and manual" at this point despite there being some obvious benefits. In time there may be... But not yet.

[Killboy]

[Piha]

SpeckledJim said:

Helicopter123 said:

Brexit Plan B: "Revoke Article 50"

- Cost: £0
- Saving vs no deal mitigation: £billions
- Planning time: none
- Additional preparations: none
- Soldiers on streets: 0
- Fake ferry companies involved: 0
- Irish border situation: 100% resolved
- Passport colour: any

- Damage to UK democracy and international credibility: Enormous

- Care about damage to UK democracy among some of those who've never been on the wrong side of it before and don't like it: Sadly, dishearteningly, demoralisingly little

Let's wait a little a little while before we start shouting too much about democracy......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks

[Dr Jekyll]

Helicopter123 said:

Our net contribution is currently £9bn.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-...

Our 'divorce settlement' is £39bn.

Let's spend the saving on the NHS

Actually nearer £13bn a year, the £39bn is a one off. Also the £13bn was going to increase in any event and the rebate quite possibly abolished even if we hadn't tried to leave. If we fail to leave what's to stop them putting it up to £20bn, or £50bn?

[Helicopter123]

Dr Jekyll said:

Helicopter123 said:

Our net contribution is currently £9bn.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-...

Our 'divorce settlement' is £39bn.

Let's spend the saving on the NHS

Actually nearer £13bn a year, the £39bn is a one off. Also the £13bn was going to increase in any event and the rebate quite possibly abolished even if we hadn't tried to leave. If we fail to leave what's to stop them putting it up to £20bn, or £50bn?

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Helicopter123 said:

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

I like your logic.

If we leave with no deal we can save the whole £39bn.

No?

[s2art]

Helicopter123 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Helicopter123 said:

Our net contribution is currently £9bn.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-...

Our 'divorce settlement' is £39bn.

Let's spend the saving on the NHS

Actually nearer £13bn a year, the £39bn is a one off. Also the £13bn was going to increase in any event and the rebate quite possibly abolished even if we hadn't tried to leave. If we fail to leave what's to stop them putting it up to £20bn, or £50bn?

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

Have you included the tariffs we pay over to the EU in that calculation?

[Murph7355]

Helicopter123 said:

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

Is that you doing 39-9?

If so... You need to go and check how the 39bn was built up and when it became/becomes due.

We shovel enough money into the NHS. It's had more than 10bn per annum extra thrown at it. We could chuck 100bn at it and it wouldn't be enough. Proper reform is needed before we throw good money after bad. (Not sure that would fit in a bus).

[Dr Jekyll]

Helicopter123 said:

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

The £4bn is spent on what the EU wants to spend it on, not what the UK wants it spent on. Some of it might be spent the same way if it didn't pass through the EU, but not all of it.


Secondly, quite apart from the fact that the £39bn IF paid will likely be spread over at least 5 years. There is no way a one off £39bn can be regarded as cheaper than an open ended commitment of upwards of £9bn.

You are also assuming the EU would neither raise the contribution nor abolish the rebate. Given the opportunity they'd do both.

[Helicopter123]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Helicopter123 said:

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

I like your logic.

If we leave with no deal we can save the whole £39bn.

No?

Not that simple - the economic damage of no deal would see government revenues fall significantly.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Helicopter123 said:

Not that simple - the economic damage of no deal would see government revenues fall significantly.

But we are saving £39bn, surely that would cover it?

[Sway]

Helicopter123 said:

Not that simple - the economic damage of no deal would see government revenues fall significantly.

Could you let me know the calibration company and what brand/model crystal ball you're using?

Thanks.

[Helicopter123]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Helicopter123 said:

Not that simple - the economic damage of no deal would see government revenues fall significantly.

But we are saving £39bn, surely that would cover it?

Possibly, possibly not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47209266

The BoE remain concerned by 'no deal' Brexit.

It's impossible to gauge just how deep the 'no deal' brexit recession would be. Some are saying as bad or worse than 2008.

We can be certain of saving £30bn in Year 1 without damaging the economy. That's the sensible course of action.

Edited by Helicopter123 on Tuesday 12th February 17:24

[Sway]

We cannot be certain about anything regarding the future... Anyone suggesting otherwise is using far too simplistic thinking.

[paul.deitch]

Sway said:

Could you let me know the calibration company and what brand/model crystal ball you're using?

Thanks.

Love it.;) Im stealing that!

[TEKNOPUG]

Helicopter123 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Helicopter123 said:

Our net contribution is currently £9bn.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-...

Our 'divorce settlement' is £39bn.

Let's spend the saving on the NHS

Actually nearer £13bn a year, the £39bn is a one off. Also the £13bn was going to increase in any event and the rebate quite possibly abolished even if we hadn't tried to leave. If we fail to leave what's to stop them putting it up to £20bn, or £50bn?

No, you are mistaken.

£13bn is our gross payment, but EU spending in the UK is estimated to be £4bn so £9bn net.

It's in the link.

We save £30bn in year 1, wouldn't that money be better spent on our NHS?

So what your saying is that £39b is a smaller amount than £9b times infinity?

Yes?

You are Dianne Abbott AICMFP