How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

Eddie, you do like to request cessation of mentioning Target2. I've previously posted I'd be happy to one anyone can explain why having a trillion euros and growing of unfunded, non interest accruing loans to already defunct economies is a good thing - and how it'll ever be unwound without EZ collapse.

So far, no takers. Clearly you understand it sufficiently to alleviate my fears.

And did you have any takers for your bet? No? And could it possibly be that it's because it's demonstrably a bad thing? Why yes it is.

And have you perniciously linked it persistently with non existent liabilities as an EU member? Why yes you have. Does that make you a mendacious peddler of half truths in pursuit of an ideological position? Why yes to that as well.

Please feel free to point out where I've detailed liabilities under Target2 for the UK, other than the inevitable increased membership fees?

My problem with T2 (not the big green thunderbird, that was my favourite one) is that as a member, we are massively constrained in our ability to mitigate the effects of such central bank contagion within the club we would be inextricably linked to legally in the event of a remain decision.

But of course, feel free to carry on calling me mendacious. It's like goldy, but made of iron.

Feel free to explain why it makes zero difference whether we are in or out when T2 implodes. That'll satisfy me massively. As it stands, all you've done is call my comments about T2 bullst leaver rhetoric, before throwing insults around - without actually getting anywhere near explaining why it's bullst...

[Eddie Strohacker]

Robertj21a said:

Since when do you speak for 'everyone else here.....' ?

It always seems to me that you speak for very few others but tend to spend your time asking questions of people so that you can attempt to humiliate them - quite sad really.

If I don't speak for you, who has a penchant for telling people to leave the country if they like the EU so much or Alfie or anyone else here with a religious fervour for their anti EU stance, then that's just fine by me. If you think I'm unaware of a thread about me & Sidicks bickering, then you're also mistaken. If you further can't make the link as to why I told someone I consider to be pathologically think skinned & unable to let even the most trivial point slide, even if it means days of bickering, to do one, then I respectfully suggest you're paying significantly less attention than some of us are managing.

[Sway]

mx5nut said:

Sway said:

During the period of the bailouts mentioned, what happened retrospectively to our membership bill?

I'll give you a hint - it involved Cameron stating unequivocally that he wasn't paying it, before doing exactly that...

This, along with paying the divorce bill as requested, will surely show the rest of the world what a strong player we are in any future negotiations with them

Feel free to explain how meeting our legal obligations in one example, and choosing to consciously exceed then in another, is an example of a country that others wouldn't want to negotiate with in good faith?

Or is being a strong player signing agreements then reneging on them? Does that create respect and future positive relationships?

[alfie2244]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Robertj21a said:

Since when do you speak for 'everyone else here.....' ?

It always seems to me that you speak for very few others but tend to spend your time asking questions of people so that you can attempt to humiliate them - quite sad really.

If I don't speak for you, who has a penchant for telling people to leave the country if they like the EU so much or Alfie or anyone else here with a religious fervour for their anti EU stance, then that's just fine by me. If you think I'm unaware of a thread about me & Sidicks bickering, then you're also mistaken. If you further can't make the link as to why I told someone I consider to be pathologically think skinned & unable to let even the most trivial point slide, even if it means days of bickering, to do one, then I respectfully suggest you're paying significantly less attention than some of us are managing.

How old are you?

[Eddie Strohacker]

alfie2244 said:

How old are you?

I'm old enough to be well past the puerile habit of making farmyard animal references in respect of other people, that much I can tell you.

[anonymous-user]

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

Fine, but what do you say about this (from the BBC link):

"In addition, the UK-EU deal from February [2016, post all previous bailouts], which will be implemented if the UK votes to stay in the EU, reinforces this and states that the UK would be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the cost of the eurozone crisis."

Are you saying that isn't what the agreement says, or that is it not worth the paper it is written on, or something else? I'm just trying to understand what the magnitude of the risk presented by an EU bailout was had we stayed in the EU.

Would that be the agreement made during Cameron's triumphant negotiations, that in short order one of the four presidents made clear wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

Not my words, direct quote from the other negotiating party...

That isn't quite how I remember it.

The Cameron deal had a number of aspects, of which this was one. Immigration brakes and benefits restrictions were others. The deal would have to be approved by the European Parliament, and the objections from national leaders were focussed on immigration/FOM, not the Euro bailout funding aspects.

[Sway]

Greg66 said:

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

Fine, but what do you say about this (from the BBC link):

"In addition, the UK-EU deal from February [2016, post all previous bailouts], which will be implemented if the UK votes to stay in the EU, reinforces this and states that the UK would be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the cost of the eurozone crisis."

Are you saying that isn't what the agreement says, or that is it not worth the paper it is written on, or something else? I'm just trying to understand what the magnitude of the risk presented by an EU bailout was had we stayed in the EU.

Would that be the agreement made during Cameron's triumphant negotiations, that in short order one of the four presidents made clear wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

Not my words, direct quote from the other negotiating party...

That isn't quite how I remember it.

The Cameron deal had a number of aspects, of which this was one. Immigration brakes and benefits restrictions were others. The deal would have to be approved by the European Parliament, and the objections from national leaders were focussed on immigration/FOM, not the Euro bailout funding aspects.

Was there any proposals to split the ratification, or was it going to be presented as a 'job lot'?

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

alfie2244 said:

How old are you?

I'm old enough to be well past the puerile habit of making farmyard animal references in respect of other people, that much I can tell you.

"favourite leaver bullst" would appear to be a farmyard animal reference in respect of another person - me.

Any more petards you want to set yourself up to be hoisted by?

[alfie2244]

Eddie Strohacker said:

alfie2244 said:

How old are you?

I'm old enough to be well past the puerile habit of making farmyard animal references in respect of other people, that much I can tell you.

Chickened out of giving a straight answer then?

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

Please feel free to point out where I've detailed liabilities under Target2 for the UK, other than the inevitable increased membership fees?

This isn't true. If you don't know that that isn't true, then you have no credibility on the matter from here on. If however you do know this isn't true & are still pushing it (and if you have any reasoning at all, you'll notice you were just credited by me) then you are, as I said before, a dishonest broker.

Sway said:

My problem with T2 (not the big green thunderbird, that was my favourite one) is that as a member, we are massively constrained in our ability to mitigate the effects of such central bank contagion within the club we would be inextricably linked to legally in the event of a remain decision.

If they do go pop, we're fked either way, it would be a null argument as we have or rather had, from 2019 an exclusion from liability. However, you're overlooking entirely and entirely deliberately I would suggest, the political will to dig Italy & Spain out in order to preserve the union. It would happen, you know it would happen & so I find the usual knuckle dragging accusations of doom & gloom hilarious in context whenever you sashay into town on your trusty T2 dobbin.

[mx5nut]

Sway said:

mx5nut said:

Sway said:

During the period of the bailouts mentioned, what happened retrospectively to our membership bill?

I'll give you a hint - it involved Cameron stating unequivocally that he wasn't paying it, before doing exactly that...

This, along with paying the divorce bill as requested, will surely show the rest of the world what a strong player we are in any future negotiations with them

Feel free to explain how meeting our legal obligations in one example, and choosing to consciously exceed then in another, is an example of a country that others wouldn't want to negotiate with in good faith?

It's not. Doing it after bigging ourselves up as being too good to pay them by our negotiating team and foreign secretary ("go whistle" etc) just might be seen as a weakness, though

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

Eddie Strohacker said:

alfie2244 said:

How old are you?

I'm old enough to be well past the puerile habit of making farmyard animal references in respect of other people, that much I can tell you.

"favourite leaver bullst" would appear to be a farmyard animal reference in respect of another person - me.

Any more petards you want to set yourself up to be hoisted by?

You have no idea what you're on about, trust me.

[Sway]

If it's so obviously untrue, then a quote will be easy to find, after all "target2" is a very specific search term...

You've still not answered my question - ignoring what we could choose to do to help other nations in difficulty, what economic levers to help US mitigate the effects on US, are off the table as a non-EU nation? What levers are off the table as an EU nation?

The former list is exceptionally short, the latter really quite long...

[mx5nut]

EU Withdrawal Bill 'won't be debated this month'

It's a good thing we're not on a deadline for any of this, isn't it?

[Sway]

mx5nut said:

Sway said:

mx5nut said:

Sway said:

During the period of the bailouts mentioned, what happened retrospectively to our membership bill?

I'll give you a hint - it involved Cameron stating unequivocally that he wasn't paying it, before doing exactly that...

This, along with paying the divorce bill as requested, will surely show the rest of the world what a strong player we are in any future negotiations with them

Feel free to explain how meeting our legal obligations in one example, and choosing to consciously exceed then in another, is an example of a country that others wouldn't want to negotiate with in good faith?

It's not. Doing it after bigging ourselves up as being too good to pay them by our negotiating team and foreign secretary ("go whistle" etc) just might be seen as a weakness, though

That's not what was said. What was said, is that if the EU think the liability is in the order of €100Bn, then they can go whistle... Not that we wouldn't be paying anything.

[anonymous-user]

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

Fine, but what do you say about this (from the BBC link):

"In addition, the UK-EU deal from February [2016, post all previous bailouts], which will be implemented if the UK votes to stay in the EU, reinforces this and states that the UK would be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the cost of the eurozone crisis."

Are you saying that isn't what the agreement says, or that is it not worth the paper it is written on, or something else? I'm just trying to understand what the magnitude of the risk presented by an EU bailout was had we stayed in the EU.

Would that be the agreement made during Cameron's triumphant negotiations, that in short order one of the four presidents made clear wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

Not my words, direct quote from the other negotiating party...

That isn't quite how I remember it.

The Cameron deal had a number of aspects, of which this was one. Immigration brakes and benefits restrictions were others. The deal would have to be approved by the European Parliament, and the objections from national leaders were focussed on immigration/FOM, not the Euro bailout funding aspects.

Was there any proposals to split the ratification, or was it going to be presented as a 'job lot'?

AFAIK it never got that far, because it was to have been the terms governing our relationship had we stayed, and we opted to leave instead.

If I had to speculate: the UK votes to stay in and the deal then goes before the European Parliament. France and Germany both supported it, and would have applied pressure accordingly. If that were insufficient to overcome resistance to a FOM exception for the UK, then that provision would have been excised.

If that's the deal that Cameron would, in this alternative timeline, used to keep the UK in the EU, there is no way the EU would have (post a Remain win) have chucked it out wholesale, much less chucked it out wholesale because one part of it was objectionable. FWIW, I suspect that it would have been adopted in full.

[sidicks]

Sway said:

If it's so obviously untrue, then a quote will be easy to find, after all "target2" is a very specific search term...

You've still not answered my question - ignoring what we could choose to do to help other nations in difficulty, what economic levers to help US mitigate the effects on US, are off the table as a non-EU nation? What levers are off the table as an EU nation?

The former list is exceptionally short, the latter really quite long...

No idea why you’re sticking with this, Eddie has read the BBC website so he’s clearly fully informed on this topic!

[London424]

mx5nut said:

EU Withdrawal Bill 'won't be debated this month'

It's a good thing we're not on a deadline for any of this, isn't it?

Why are you in such a rush?

It's a 2 year period where we won't know the final details until the very last minute (if other EU negotiations are the precedent).

In other news I'm not sure if this was posted but Germany are outlining their position.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16...

[mx5nut]

sidicks said:

No idea why you’re sticking with this, Eddie has read the BBC website so he’s clearly fully informed on this topic!

Looks like we've reached peak Brexiteer - talking down our national broadcaster as somehow being biased for reporting the facts.

[KrissKross]

Mrr T said:

This is a great idea. Let’s get rid of all product standards. Who cares if teddy bears have eyes attached with pins, what’s a few crippled children, when we can have truly free trade.

Yes sounds sensible, why not setup a business selling "break your child" toys, BYC will take off and you will become a millionaire very soon, please post in the business section so we can keep track of how you do.

Have you seen some of the dangerous crap you can buy from China on eBay, how much "EU" compliance does most of that have, I can tell you none, as I used to be one of the people selling dodgy crap on the internet many moons ago!