How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
rs1952 said:
mondeoman said:
And the Walloons were "persuaded" to change their minds....
Yes. "Persuaded" (your quotes - I wonder what you were trying to imply by that?The best way to persuade people is by the strength of your argument. If that doesn't work :-
You can "persuade" people around to your way of thinking by taking them down a dark alley and giving them a "strict talking to."
You can "persuade" people with thumbscrews and many other less than pleasant implements.
You can also "persuade" people by throwing enough goodies at them so that they eventually agree to what you are proposing.
The latter is the usual EU way. Its called bribery .
The DUP are currently being "persuaded" to prop up a minority conservative administration. It appears in that case that the "goody bag" may not be big enough...
"British tourists will be guaranteed free health cover when they are on holiday in the EU, David Davis has disclosed, as the Government prepared to publish its detailed Brexit negotiating position on migrants’ rights.
The Brexit Secretary will ask the EU to continue with the current European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme, and said that if Brussels refuses, the Government will foot the £155 million a year bill."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/25/british...
The Brexit Secretary will ask the EU to continue with the current European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme, and said that if Brussels refuses, the Government will foot the £155 million a year bill."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/25/british...
We pay for it anyway, its just a system that allows UK citizens to get treatment in the EU that is then changed back to the UK NHS.
Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
BlackLabel said:
"British tourists will be guaranteed free health cover when they are on holiday in the EU, David Davis has disclosed, as the Government prepared to publish its detailed Brexit negotiating position on migrants’ rights.
The Brexit Secretary will ask the EU to continue with the current European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme, and said that if Brussels refuses, the Government will foot the £155?million a year bill."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/25/british...
You do realise that will mean reciprocal agreements?The Brexit Secretary will ask the EU to continue with the current European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme, and said that if Brussels refuses, the Government will foot the £155?million a year bill."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/25/british...
I have no issue with it, as its continuing an existing freedom/benefit - we'll be keeping and paying for it.
Not sure what your average kipper who thinks we'll be getting rid of EU migrants using the NHS will make of it.
jsf said:
We pay for it anyway, its just a system that allows UK citizens to get treatment in the EU that is then changed back to the UK NHS.
Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
So you mean an eu worker who pays taxes will have to have separate health insurance in this country ? I think you have no idea what you are talking about Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
Tryke3 said:
jsf said:
We pay for it anyway, its just a system that allows UK citizens to get treatment in the EU that is then changed back to the UK NHS.
Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
So you mean an eu worker who pays taxes will have to have separate health insurance in this country ? I think you have no idea what you are talking about Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
Our lack of desire to claim back what we can from other member states (as they do from us) isn't down to being in or out of the EU granted. jsf simply noted a desire for our authorities to do so, and that maybe being out of the EU when the costs associated will hopefully become significantly more transparent, will help in that.
Murph7355 said:
///ajd said:
...
Not sure what your average kipper who thinks we'll be getting rid of EU migrants using the NHS will make of it.
One imagines that even the stupid, ugly, racist UKIP supporter can tell the difference between a "migrant" and a "holidaymaker"....?Not sure what your average kipper who thinks we'll be getting rid of EU migrants using the NHS will make of it.
Rich_W said:
Well I'll point out I didn't say German runs the EU. But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?
The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on f
ked off with this arrangement.
How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
Exactly this, people treat the EU as a whole but its nothing of the sort. I have been trading with these countries for years. We sell to the ones at the top of that graph, and not the ones at the bottom. Come on you remainers please explain why that is? But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on f
ked off with this arrangement. How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
The EU does nothing, it is nothing other than a bureaucratic blood sucking machine. I find it amazing people are blind to the dealings of this propaganda machine.
Tryke3 said:
jsf said:
We pay for it anyway, its just a system that allows UK citizens to get treatment in the EU that is then changed back to the UK NHS.
Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
So you mean an eu worker who pays taxes will have to have separate health insurance in this country ? I think you have no idea what you are talking about Hopefully when we leave we will start charging EU citizens properly for care they receive through the NHS, rather than the current situation where we don't bother to claw back the costs from the EU, as we should be doing.
In the UK, when an EU citizen (or any other country in practice) uses our NHS, they get free support, the UK is then supposed to charge back the cost to the EU citizens country. That isn't happening. Anyone who is working in the UK and paying UK tax gets the same benefits as a UK citizen, so no charge back occurs.
When I had to take a workmate to hospital in Monza a couple of years ago, before he was treated we had to go through a registration process that logged his details on their system to charge back the costs to the UK, he didn't have his EHIC with him so they used his driving licence to check his ID and that pulled up his NI number, once that was done he was seen by a doctor. Before we left we had to pay a 100 Euro bill for admin costs, they had a card machine in the waiting room for this purpose.
All the ex pats in Spain get the same level of cover as the Spanish NHS provides free at the point of use, that cost then gets charged back to the UK. It isn't the Spanish who are paying for the healthcare costs for our retired citizens in Spain, it is UK PLC. It's a nice little earner for Spain PLC, one of the reasons why the ex-pat community is Spain is going nowhere post Brexit.
Clear enough for you Mr Troll?
KrissKross said:
Rich_W said:
Well I'll point out I didn't say German runs the EU. But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?
The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on fked off with this arrangement.
How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
Exactly this, people treat the EU as a whole but its nothing of the sort. I have been trading with these countries for years. We sell to the ones at the top of that graph, and not the ones at the bottom. Come on you remainers please explain why that is? But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on f
ked off with this arrangement. How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
The EU does nothing, it is nothing other than a bureaucratic blood sucking machine. I find it amazing people are blind to the dealings of this propaganda machine.
You can see where the UK is giving money to Poland to build roads (they have great roads) to allow them to better to ship cheap product back west...we are literally paying them to compete with us.
Robertj21a said:
rs1952 said:
Your reply was far better than the one from the poster I originally responded to (in piss-take mode, BTW), but it does contain some of the tired old premises that probably got us into the current pickle in the first place.
Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.
There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
So, in your view, there's nothing wrong with federalism - but what's the benefit (if any) ?Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/04/28/france-s-macron...
So, yeah. EU superstate with Germany and France dictating to the others - seems to me like more fact than supposition.
imo, Poland will likely still say 'stick it' on the immigration front despite any sanctions they might decide to impose, but still it's clear that
(a) a superstate is the destination; and;
(b) Germany and France are the decision makers (shall we call these countries Snowball and Napoleon?), and;
(c) they are prepared to consider forceful options to achieve their desired outcome.
Edited by Angrybiker on Monday 26th June 13:02
sherbertdip said:
I would say about 50% of people i know who voted brexit now believe they made a mistake
YouGov suggests nothing like that on a national basis. with movement towards Leave:"The rise of the 'Re-Leavers' means the pro-Brexit electorate is now 68%"
"There is still little sign of any “Bregret”. There is (however) a media appetite for a narrative of the public changing their mind and some newspaper stories based on open-access voodoo polls or cherry-picking individual polls".
turbobloke said:
YouGov suggests not:
The rise of the “Re-Leavers” mean the pro-Brexit electorate is now 68%
There is still little sign of any “Bregret”. There is (however) a media appetite for a narrative of the public changing their mind and some newspaper stories based on open-access voodoo polls or cherry-picking individual polls.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/forget-52-rise-re-leavers-mean-pro-brexit-electora/The rise of the “Re-Leavers” mean the pro-Brexit electorate is now 68%
There is still little sign of any “Bregret”. There is (however) a media appetite for a narrative of the public changing their mind and some newspaper stories based on open-access voodoo polls or cherry-picking individual polls.
Which is why polls were showing such massive Tory leads before May began her "campaign".
What are our thoughts on our chief negotiator David Davies? At first I thought he lacked the authority to be able to waltz in and tell them what's what but his approach and openness about how the talks are progressing are quite positive I think, and picking up on his claim of being confident of a trade deal, if he can somehow negotiate that without too much compromise I reckon that's as good as it gets.
Quietly confident would be my judgement so far and a lot of the chest pumping from both sides with bold statements about who was getting what has quietened down somewhat, allowing for some constructive progress.
Would also be good to hear from EU countries on how they are viewing brexit so far.
Quietly confident would be my judgement so far and a lot of the chest pumping from both sides with bold statements about who was getting what has quietened down somewhat, allowing for some constructive progress.
Would also be good to hear from EU countries on how they are viewing brexit so far.
Edited by dazwalsh on Monday 26th June 14:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff