Boris. £350m for the NHS if we leave EU. Again.
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
What like you you mean? 
Do me a favour.
Exhibit A ^^^ Cameron was right to call the referendum....
No, he wasn't. It was done for one reason & one reason only - to lance the weeping sore of the worst eurosceptics of the Tory party & where is the Tory party now? Weakened, more divided than ever & shored up by a bunch of 16th century religious fanatics. meanwhile, the country is irreconcilably divided, our reputation as an outward looking inclusive society is in the bin & the only people happy about that are you. The 3.7 in ten of the population willing to sacrifice their children for insularity, parochialism & nostalgia for a past that never actually existed. So please, spare me your condescending lecture about objectivity.
You are mistaking your opinion for fact. Do me a favour.Exhibit A ^^^ Cameron was right to call the referendum....
No, he wasn't. It was done for one reason & one reason only - to lance the weeping sore of the worst eurosceptics of the Tory party & where is the Tory party now? Weakened, more divided than ever & shored up by a bunch of 16th century religious fanatics. meanwhile, the country is irreconcilably divided, our reputation as an outward looking inclusive society is in the bin & the only people happy about that are you. The 3.7 in ten of the population willing to sacrifice their children for insularity, parochialism & nostalgia for a past that never actually existed. So please, spare me your condescending lecture about objectivity.
UKIPs advances in their number of votes will have had at least as much influence in his decision. Tory party in fighting had been happening for years. Why choose when he did solely to "cure" that? Other triggers prompted it.
The referendum did not cause the division. The country had been increasingly divided on the topic and a referendum was only a matter of time. In many respects it might have been better for it to wait another 5yrs...I doubt the result would have been so close. (Also opinion, of course).
Weakened reputation? Who are you listening to? You hear the negatives, I hear the positives. Our respective objectivity obviously at play. Or maybe just how we are in general?
You think the EU is an outward looking, inclusive organisation? The facts tend to suggest otherwise. And a vote for being able to trade with everyone and anyone is less outward looking than the EU? Right oh.
Far from being brought up with an insular, parochial view my kids are being brought up by a father who has worked in a dozen different countries and spent 20% of his career abroad. My kids will know the value of exploring the world, and of how much there is to learn from different cultures. That hard work and desire will get them what they want and that taking the easy options in life is not always best. Not becoming overly dependent on anyone else, and not being afraid of change when something isn't working is also wise. But then I'm an inward looking, isolationist Leave voter
You opened the topic of your objectivity. Don't be surprised that people call you on it. If you stuck to your flounces you wouldn't be open to it. And as for "condescending"...to use your vernacular "hypocrisy much".
TooMany2cvs said:
So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a t
t and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?
Why on earth would you concede a payment before you even discussed what you really need agreement on. It's leverage. It's not 'being a tt and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?t' or 'childish' it's a negotiation.TooMany2cvs said:
Why? Is there a problem with agreeing what already-committed ongoing expenditure needs to be paid for post-exit? Surely it's actually really straightforward, and doesn't actually impinge on the terms of a deal?
So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a tt and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?
The EUs "divorce" bill seems to consist of three elements.So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a t
t and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?a) a share of the liabilities taken on by the EU, but not a share of the assets.
b) committed expenditure to the end of the EU budget cycle
c) a number plucked out of the air given that some of the amounts said are considerably higher than the two above.
The legal basis of b is not proven as far as I am aware, and a made up number can have no such basis as well. So eventually this is going to have to be tied to an eventual deal because otherwise there is no reason for the UK government to pay it.
This is not about who has the stronger hand in the negotiations, just the simple fact that there needs to be some sort of negotiation where costs are matched to benefits.
jsf said:
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
There is a major problem here where the EU has painted itself into a corner by insisting on agreeing the exit bill before moving on, why they thought the UK would agree to this is showing their in built culture that they are the boss. This is the issue that could lead to no deal.
Why? Is there a problem with agreeing what already-committed ongoing expenditure needs to be paid for post-exit? Surely it's actually really straightforward, and doesn't actually impinge on the terms of a deal?So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a t
t and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?jsf said:
The trade side of things should be the easiest part to agree on, because we don't have the issues of traditional trade agreements with regards to equivalence, everything you need, if the will is there to come to a deal, is already in place.
To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
But that's the point. The question of ongoing commitments really should NOT be contentious. It should be as simple as looking down the list of ongoing projects, and what spending is committed where, with a calculator to hand. Job jobbed. Is it time for a coffee yet?To choose the most contentious issue first shows how low down the order of priorities the EU consider the interests of EU business or people compared to funding their project. That approach is counter productive for everyone, especially when the whole deal has to be agreed or nothing is agreed anyway.
The only reason it can possibly become contentious is if the UK delegation are trying to pull a fast one, and dip to the bog just as it's time for them to get a round in.
fblm said:
TooMany2cvs said:
So why on earth WOULDN'T the UK negotiators be happy to get it out of the way first...? Unless, of course, they were planning on being a tt and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?
Why on earth would you concede a payment before you even discussed what you really need agreement on. It's leverage. It's not 'being a tt and either refusing to agree or then trying to twist it based on other things... Or is it simply a childish "We want to say how this works"?t' or 'childish' it's a negotiation.That falls into two broad areas.
1. What we will owe for things we've already committed to.
2. What the ongoing relationship will be.
It's really not that hard, and the two aren't exactly heavily inter-related.
1. Everybody committed to pay their part of a major regeneration project in Elbonia that's due to finish in 2025. The UK's chunk of that is £x.
2. What happens when Doris who moved to Marbella ten years ago gets the lurgy?
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 20th September 08:18
TooMany2cvs said:
1. Everybody committed to pay their part of a major regeneration project in Elbonia that's due to finish in 2025. The UK's chunk of that is £x.
2. What happens when Doris who moved to Marbella ten years ago gets the lurgy?
Elbonia 2. What happens when Doris who moved to Marbella ten years ago gets the lurgy?
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 20th September 08:18
don'tbesilly said:
kurt535 said:
don'tbesilly said:
kurt535 said:
Romanian lad runs his own cement underpinning/groundworks business. He has been here for 17 years. He set up on his own 10 years ago having got fed up with knuckle dragging racism wherever he worked on a building site. Now with Brexit, he is going back to Romania, ironically shutting down a company that employs 5 people, 3 of whom are english.
So your Romanian friend set his business up when the industry was approaching the worst recession the industry had seen for years, survived the recession that lasted 12-18 months, and for no other reason other than Brexit (which given he's been here for 17 years will probably not have any impact on him what so ever) he is shutting down what according to you is a successful business employing 5 people.Makes no sense.
So which one of your trades people sent you the link that you wax so lyrical about in this post:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
You also couldn't have done your last project without them, but needn't guidance on how to deal with the damp problems you were encountering in the 200 + yr property.
kurt535 said:
craziest thing, all bar the english labourer have an in-depth knowledge of our old buildings - by old i mean 200 years plus. my most recent project could not have been achieved without them.
You couldn't make it up.................................unless your Kurt535 
Never fails to make me chuckle.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3ytL0lh0U
Boris bested by the raging torrents of Lewisham's Quaggy River.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H3ytL0lh0U
Boris bested by the raging torrents of Lewisham's Quaggy River.
kurt535 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
I find ///ajd and you to be the only two stand out idiot Remainers on the forum. All the rest seem reasonable and I can agree and disagree on various areas, but you two in particular have a style of posting that lacks any balance and just seems pure negative PR bks speak most of the time.
Damn it i need to try harder to get on your Remainer radarks speak most of the time. re your construction industry comment, my building team:
Sparks: Cuban
bricklayer: Irish
plasterer: Cuban
Cement/foundation crew: Romanian
Plumber: english, for the moment but horrendous attitude and definitely out the door once a polish lad I know gets his quals transferred
Labourer: english........last one too.
Murph7355 said:
You are mistaking your opinion for fact.
UKIPs advances in their number of votes will have had at least as much influence in his decision. Tory party in fighting had been happening for years. Why choose when he did solely to "cure" that? Other triggers prompted it.
The referendum did not cause the division. The country had been increasingly divided on the topic and a referendum was only a matter of time. In many respects it might have been better for it to wait another 5yrs...I doubt the result would have been so close. (Also opinion, of course).
Weakened reputation? Who are you listening to? You hear the negatives, I hear the positives. Our respective objectivity obviously at play. Or maybe just how we are in general?
You think the EU is an outward looking, inclusive organisation? The facts tend to suggest otherwise. And a vote for being able to trade with everyone and anyone is less outward looking than the EU? Right oh.
Nice revisionism. Are you JSF in disguise? UKIPs advances in their number of votes will have had at least as much influence in his decision. Tory party in fighting had been happening for years. Why choose when he did solely to "cure" that? Other triggers prompted it.
The referendum did not cause the division. The country had been increasingly divided on the topic and a referendum was only a matter of time. In many respects it might have been better for it to wait another 5yrs...I doubt the result would have been so close. (Also opinion, of course).
Weakened reputation? Who are you listening to? You hear the negatives, I hear the positives. Our respective objectivity obviously at play. Or maybe just how we are in general?
You think the EU is an outward looking, inclusive organisation? The facts tend to suggest otherwise. And a vote for being able to trade with everyone and anyone is less outward looking than the EU? Right oh.
I see you posted that at midnight & were back at the coalface at 7am. I'm not in your league of zealotry such that this s
t occupies my thoughts 24 hours a day but I'll say this - you've clearly forgotten that Europe killed three Tory Prime Ministers. you've forgotten Cameron's promise of a referendum in 2007 & subsequent reneging after the Lisbon treaty was signed. You've clearly forgotten Cameron failing to win a majority in 2010 & entering into a coalition with the despised by the Tory 1922 headbangers pro European Lib Dems, putting the Europe issue into the Tory deep freeze & You've clearly forgotten David Nuttall's motion garnering 81 (!!) Tory rebels making a referendum promise inevitable. You also seem to have forgotten 40 years of pro Tory press poisoning the narrative & a charismatic liar in seven times loser Farage stirring the pot. But sure, ascribe it to UKIP & divisions in the country. I'll think of it as a permanently divided Tory party who having got their way are in a worse state than ever before, sinking the country in pursuit of their own ideological dispute. Leavers - just can't come to terms with their own success.Murph7355 said:
Far from being brought up with an insular, parochial view my kids are being brought up by a father who has worked in a dozen different countries and spent 20% of his career abroad. My kids will know the value of exploring the world, and of how much there is to learn from different cultures. That hard work and desire will get them what they want and that taking the easy options in life is not always best. Not becoming overly dependent on anyone else, and not being afraid of change when something isn't working is also wise. But then I'm an inward looking, isolationist Leave voter
Touched a nerve? It's only a car forum, snowflake.Murph7355 said:
UKIPs advances in their number of votes will have had at least as much influence in his decision. Tory party in fighting had been happening for years. Why choose when he did solely to "cure" that? Other triggers prompted it.
Yes, Tory in-fighting had happened for decades over Europe. Yes, UKIP's advances made that much more of an issue.I really don't think Cameron had any choice but to call the referendum as part of the 2015 campaign. If he hadn't, it would have hung heavily over him anyway. By calling it, he delayed the comeback from the decision until the election was done and dusted. If he won, he could fight it as a solus issue, but removing it from the election meant he could fight the election on other policies.
Murph7355 said:
The referendum did not cause the division. The country had been increasingly divided on the topic and a referendum was only a matter of time.
No, but the referendum completed Farage's job of turning it from a fringe division into a mainstream one. The Leave campaign showed no shame in bare-faced lying, even when the lies were pointed straight at. The Remain campaign tried to fight emotion with facts, which never really works.Murph7355 said:
And a vote for being able to trade with everyone and anyone is less outward looking than the EU? Right oh.
Can somebody PLEASE explain to me how being a member of the EU stops the UK trading with non-EU countries? Germany seems to manage just fine... Hell, the UK seems to manage just fine... Over half of all UK exports go to non-EU countries, just under half of all UK imports come from non-EU countries.BUT... For the rest of the EU, the proportion they export to or import from the UK is MUCH smaller than "roughly half"...
All 2015 figures...
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-trade-partners/ (conversion at €1 = 71p, rough 2015 mid-year rate - it's now 89p...)
Exports from UK to EU27 - £230bn (€323bn)
UK exports to outside EU27 - £260bn (€366bn)
Imports to UK from EU27 - £290bn (€408bn)
UK imports from outside EU27 - £230bn (€323bn)
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/septemb...
Total EU imports - €1725bn
Total EU exports - €1790bn
If we move the UK<->EU trade outside the EU, I make the EU27 imports a total of €1400bn and exports of €1380bn, so UK-EU27 trade is around half of our total international trade, but only 23% imports, 29% exports of theirs.
Remind me who's more reliant on UK-EU27 trade? Remind me how the EU stifles exports, when they manage to do 50% better at trading outside the community than we do?
Eddie Strohacker said:
you've clearly forgotten that Europe killed three Tory Prime Ministers
The Tory party killed three Tory PMs. Well, Thatcher committed suicide with her domestic policies, too, but...Eddie Strohacker said:
you've forgotten Cameron's promise of a referendum in 2007 & subsequent reneging after the Lisbon treaty was signed.
Cameron couldn't "promise" a referendum on the treaty in 2007 - he wasn't PM. He could promise a referendum IF it hadn't been signed by the time he was PM - but that was utterly meaningless the moment Brown signed it in December 2007. By the time Cameron came into power in 2010, the Lisbon Treaty was not only long since signed, but already in force. What could he have possibly done to wind it back if a referendum had said "No"? Nothing... except leave the EU.Eddie Strohacker said:
You also seem to have forgotten 40 years of pro Tory press poisoning the narrative & a charismatic liar in seven times loser Farage stirring the pot.
That's certainly true.Eddie Strohacker said:
But sure, ascribe it to UKIP & divisions in the country. I'll think of it as a permanently divided Tory party who having got their way are in a worse state than ever before, sinking the country in pursuit of their own ideological dispute.
That's also true. Y'see, that's the thing. It wasn't THAT simple... It was a combination of things, all basically coming back to a small island mentality, and a sense of entitlement that this small, damp rock is somehow inherently entitled to rule the waves. Clearly, utterly ridiculous.Meanwhile, Labour were too busy with even deeper internal battles to form anything approaching an effective opposition, behind a leader who really doesn't give much of a toss either way about Europe, because he doesn't really approve of international relations or international trade in the first place.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Leavers - just can't come to terms with their own success.
Because they never thought they'd win, so they never PLANNED for how to deliver their stated aims... Hell, one significant leader of the Leave campaign didn't really WANT to win - in terms of actually wanting to leave - but simply thought it would help further his career. Now, he's finding out that winning the battle handed him a poison chalice, and is in the process of losing the war as a result.TooMany2cvs said:
Cameron couldn't "promise" a referendum on the treaty in 2007 - he wasn't PM. He could promise a referendum IF it hadn't been signed by the time he was PM - but that was utterly meaningless the moment Brown signed it in December 2007. By the time Cameron came into power in 2010, the Lisbon Treaty was not only long since signed, but already in force. What could he have possibly done to wind it back if a referendum had said "No"? Nothing... except leave the EU.
Let me clarify that - he pledged “a cast-iron guarantee” Tories to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Two years later, with the general election coming into view, Cameron declared the guarantee was no longer relevant, since the treaty was now law and could not be reopened. He had managed both to fire up the headbangers and then outrage them. Eddie Strohacker said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Cameron couldn't "promise" a referendum on the treaty in 2007 - he wasn't PM. He could promise a referendum IF it hadn't been signed by the time he was PM - but that was before Brown signed it in December 2007. By the time Cameron came into power in 2010, the Lisbon Treaty was not only long since signed by everybody, but already in force. What could he have possibly done to wind it back if a referendum had said "No"? Nothing... except leave the EU.
Let me clarify that - he pledged “a cast-iron guarantee” Tories to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Two years later, with the general election coming into view, Cameron declared the guarantee was no longer relevant, since the treaty was now law and could not be reopened.David Cameron said:
Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.
And that "cast iron guarantee" never had an opportunity to be put to the test. Whether he would have held a referendum was never an issue, since no treaties were up for signing once he took power - the last one to date was Lisbon.The Sun's original article has gone AWOL, so all we have is quotes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/03/davi...
Nov 2009 - Grauniad said:
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, abandoned this position today hours after Václav Klaus, the Czech president, signed the treaty. Hague said: "What has happened means it is no longer possible to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty."
Right up until the last country signed it, the signatures could be withdrawn. Once everybody had signed it, though, and it came into force...But, of course, that wasn't the bit the Mail et al latched on to... because facts have never interested them.
Eddie Strohacker said:
He had managed both to fire up the headbangers and then outrage them.
Yes, the hard-of-thinking who couldn't understand the reality, even when explained to them in small words...As if moaning about the result a year on wasn't boring enough, we've now regressed further to salty tears about even holding a referendum - its just so unfair having a vote I didn't want.....
You should have repeated your tin foil hat claim that Farage was secretly hoping for a Remain win so he could keep his job.
This thread is like a flock of Remain Oozlum birds at times.
You should have repeated your tin foil hat claim that Farage was secretly hoping for a Remain win so he could keep his job.
This thread is like a flock of Remain Oozlum birds at times.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Touched a nerve? It's only a car forum, snowflake.
No petal, I just enjoy calling you out on your bullst...and take amusement in doing so whenever time allows (so was over the moon when your last couple of flounces came to nothing. They just added to the mirth). Not being restricted to when my mum or the nursing home let me use the internet means 0000 and 0700 are perfectly acceptable times.Toomany2cvs has covered the other bits worth responding to. "Revisionist" is an interesting term for you to throw around in the context of it. But then as noted before, hypocrisy appears to be something you excel at.
Cameron was an idiot. May is no better. I suspect we can agree on that. But a referendum would have happened at some point, and the longer it was put off the more I am convinced the Leave vote would have been stronger. The EU has never and will never be prepared to fundamentally deal with the serious issues within its make up. That was never going to help Remain's case.
The existence of Euro-sceptics in the Tory party, and the existence of UKIP is evidence that there were national divisions on the topic of the EU. That the UKIP vote has filtered back to BOTH the Tories and Labour is indicative that party politics weren't a huge influencer either.
I genuinely wish it were different as I can appreciate some of the big benefits for what the edifice was pre-1992. Sadly wishing for that is pointless.
Guybrush said:
Here are some figures to surely make anyone worry: The OBR: £361 million a week was the gross EU contribution figure in 2016 - by 2022 it would be £427 million a week, and 334 million a week even after the rebate!
Have you heard about this thing called inflation? My parents bought their first house for £3000. Why can't first-time buyers do that now?Murph7355 said:
The existence of Euro-sceptics in the Tory party, and the existence of UKIP is evidence that there were national divisions on the topic of the EU. That the UKIP vote has filtered back to BOTH the Tories and Labour is indicative that party politics weren't a huge influencer either.
No, it's evidence the Tory party has long been a home for little Englanders longing for a nostalgic vision of homogeneous Blighty that never existed & whom are more than willing to place their own narrow views well above their country's best interests. Put it this way, not every Brexiteer is an immigrant hating parochial regressive but I'd bet every immigrant hating parochial regressive is a Brexiteer.Anyway, your smilies have disappeared from our exchanges, so I can see a nerve has been touched, so I'll leave it there, after all I don't want you getting all impotently ragey like Deptford.
TTwiggy said:
Guybrush said:
Here are some figures to surely make anyone worry: The OBR: £361 million a week was the gross EU contribution figure in 2016 - by 2022 it would be £427 million a week, and 334 million a week even after the rebate!
Have you heard about this thing called inflation? My parents bought their first house for £3000. Why can't first-time buyers do that now?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff