Boris. £350m for the NHS if we leave EU. Again.
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
Because if I hadn't, I'd have been accused of ignoring the elections where UKIP had their best success.
Not by me. Now I'm just accusing you of missing the point 
The absolute volume of votes wasn't really what the other parties were looking at. It was the direction of travel.
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
You can only think of one reason why the first stage of the discussion has become contentious and its all down to the UK.
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding the costing of the exit bill?
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding citizen rights and which court has the final say for people living in an independent UK?
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
Really?
jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding the costing of the exit bill?
No, I don't. All the pre-existing projects with ongoing costs will be very well documented in terms of what commitments have been made, when.jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding citizen rights and which court has the final say for people living in an independent UK?
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
I don't think they're anything to do with the issue of the "exit bill". Agree to that, and discussions can move on to look at the future relationships.You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
FWIW, I think this whole "which court...?" thing has been massively blown out of all proportion, by people who either don't understand that there's a myriad of international tribunals and courts, or who are trying to prove some kind of fatuous point. The only time any government has anything to fear from any supranational arbitration is when they've been caught out playing fast and loose with whatever agreements are behind the issue.
TTwiggy said:
alfie2244 said:
After about 40 yrs of it though. 
Cool - I'll be 85 when the next one rolls around! Almost as old as some of our resident Brexiteers alfie2244 said:
JJ keeps ignoring this question despite using the term "old" on virtually every one of his posts when referring to Brexiters..........perhaps you can tell me what age do you consider to be "old"?
It's a number that moves the closer I get it of course!Seriously though, I think it's more to do with the gradual retreat from the concerns of others that some people inevitably suffer from post-retirement. A sort of 'inverse student syndrome' in which the only things that concern the group are those things unique to the group (health care, security, fear of 'change' etc). I have a 70-year-old neighbour who is no different to me in his general outlook, possibly because he still runs his own business and is still 'in touch' with modernity. I don't think of him as 'old'.
I think you can be 'young' at 80 and 'old' at 65.
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding the costing of the exit bill?
No, I don't. All the pre-existing projects with ongoing costs will be very well documented in terms of what commitments have been made, when.jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding citizen rights and which court has the final say for people living in an independent UK?
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
I don't think they're anything to do with the issue of the "exit bill". Agree to that, and discussions can move on to look at the future relationships.You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
FWIW, I think this whole "which court...?" thing has been massively blown out of all proportion, by people who either don't understand that there's a myriad of international tribunals and courts, or who are trying to prove some kind of fatuous point. The only time any government has anything to fear from any supranational arbitration is when they've been caught out playing fast and loose with whatever agreements are behind the issue.
The legal standing of the agreement and which court rules over who, in terms of citizens rights is incredibly important for future integration. The potential for future unrest if you have two classes of people in the UK legally would be enormous, that would not end well. From the position of having a functioning state its a non starter, I cant see anyone who wishes to be a permanent resident in the UK wanting protection from the EU if that could sow the seeds of discontent, why would they possibly want that?
Having 3rd party bodies that arbitrate trade disputes is normal, who the body is and how they operate is part of the trade agreement.
TTwiggy said:
alfie2244 said:
JJ keeps ignoring this question despite using the term "old" on virtually every one of his posts when referring to Brexiters..........perhaps you can tell me what age do you consider to be "old"?
It's a number that moves the closer I get it of course!Seriously though, I think it's more to do with the gradual retreat from the concerns of others that some people inevitably suffer from post-retirement. A sort of 'inverse student syndrome' in which the only things that concern the group are those things unique to the group (health care, security, fear of 'change' etc). I have a 70-year-old neighbour who is no different to me in his general outlook, possibly because he still runs his own business and is still 'in touch' with modernity. I don't think of him as 'old'.
I think you can be 'young' at 80 and 'old' at 65.
I like to think I am still "in touch with modernity" so will you tell JJ to stop bullying me when he next calls me old - please
jsf said:
It's essential for the UK to be able to show to the UK population how any payment is calculated. The UK has not said it will not stand by its obligations in law, it has even stated there may be some case for good will gestures in the payment if there is no legal standing for them. What they cant do is just make a payment, it has to be legal and able to be scrutinised in law and be capable of withstanding scrutiny politically also. The short term, just pay what they ask position has no basis in law or politics, it would bite everyone, including the EU in the ass.
Perhaps the Government will be able to push it through under the proposed brexit powers.Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Wednesday 20th September 18:49
jsf said:
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding the costing of the exit bill?
No, I don't. All the pre-existing projects with ongoing costs will be very well documented in terms of what commitments have been made, when.jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding citizen rights and which court has the final say for people living in an independent UK?
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
I don't think they're anything to do with the issue of the "exit bill". Agree to that, and discussions can move on to look at the future relationships.You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
FWIW, I think this whole "which court...?" thing has been massively blown out of all proportion, by people who either don't understand that there's a myriad of international tribunals and courts, or who are trying to prove some kind of fatuous point. The only time any government has anything to fear from any supranational arbitration is when they've been caught out playing fast and loose with whatever agreements are behind the issue.
jsf said:
The UK has not said it will not stand by its obligations in law, it has even stated there may be some case for good will gestures in the payment if there is no legal standing for them. What they cant do is just make a payment, it has to be legal and able to be scrutinised in law and be capable of withstanding scrutiny politically also.
Well, of course. That's all a basic truism.jsf said:
The short term, just pay what they ask position has no basis in law or politics, it would bite everyone, including the EU in the ass.
Did anybody ever suggest that?jsf said:
The potential for future unrest if you have two classes of people in the UK legally would be enormous, that would not end well.
Umm, there's umpteen "classes" of people here already.At the very simplest level - what right people have to even be here - then there's UK nationals, EU nationals, people with ILR, people on long-term visas with or without the right to work, people on short-term resident visas, people on tourist visas, people awaiting the outcome of asylum claims, even people simply here illegally... Probably more, too, depending on what granularity you want to go to.
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding the costing of the exit bill?
No, I don't. All the pre-existing projects with ongoing costs will be very well documented in terms of what commitments have been made, when.jsf said:
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding citizen rights and which court has the final say for people living in an independent UK?
You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
I don't think they're anything to do with the issue of the "exit bill". Agree to that, and discussions can move on to look at the future relationships.You don't think there could be any valid issue surrounding how the UK manages its border with its only EU member land border with significant historical issues still on-going.
FWIW, I think this whole "which court...?" thing has been massively blown out of all proportion, by people who either don't understand that there's a myriad of international tribunals and courts, or who are trying to prove some kind of fatuous point. The only time any government has anything to fear from any supranational arbitration is when they've been caught out playing fast and loose with whatever agreements are behind the issue.
jsf said:
The UK has not said it will not stand by its obligations in law, it has even stated there may be some case for good will gestures in the payment if there is no legal standing for them. What they cant do is just make a payment, it has to be legal and able to be scrutinised in law and be capable of withstanding scrutiny politically also.
Well, of course. That's all a basic truism.jsf said:
The short term, just pay what they ask position has no basis in law or politics, it would bite everyone, including the EU in the ass.
Did anybody ever suggest that?jsf said:
The potential for future unrest if you have two classes of people in the UK legally would be enormous, that would not end well.
Umm, there's umpteen "classes" of people here already.At the very simplest level - what right people have to even be here - then there's UK nationals, EU nationals, people with ILR, people on long-term visas with or without the right to work, people on short-term resident visas, people on tourist visas, people awaiting the outcome of asylum claims, even people simply here illegally... Probably more, too, depending on what granularity you want to go to.
I was under the impression you had a problem with the UK going through the EU costing line by line. Maybe you can tell me what you have a problem with in how the UK is handling the bill issue.
jsf said:
All subject to the same legal oversight.
But different legal outcomes.jsf said:
If you emigrate to the USA, the buck stops with the USA supreme court, the UK court has no oversight for citizens on US soil.
Just like the ECJ doesn't over European citizens on European soil...If you're British in France and break a "European law", the French courts deal with you as having breached French law, because that European law has been implemented in French law.
If you're the French government, though, and break European law, then the ECJ will be where that breach is dealt with.
Let's take a topical example. If the UK government wasn't implementing this "historic interest" MOT exemption restriction, from the Roadworthiness Directive, the UK government would be being dealt with for that in the ECJ. Once it's implemented, then if you don't MOT your modified 1970s car, then you'll be seeing a UK magistrate over it, not the ECJ.
Just like the US would be up before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea if they start taking the piss in Mexican waters, or could go before the World Trade Organisation's Dispute Settlement Body, or the UN's Dispute Tribunal, or whatever other supranational court enforces whichever international treaties they may be involved in a breach of.
jsf said:
I was under the impression you had a problem with the UK going through the EU costing line by line.
No, I've always been quite clear that's not the case. Perhaps you could point me to where I've been unclear, and I can clarify whatever's caused you this confusion?jsf said:
Maybe you can tell me what you have a problem with in how the UK is handling the bill issue.
I don't understand why the UK is making such a melodramatic stand about dealing with it later, rather than just sitting down and going through the costings. It's like a teenager not wanting to do his homework before dinner. "I'll do it afterwards". No, you bloody won't. You'll be on whatsinstasnaptindr all night - then shuffle your feet, refusing to meet the Geography teacher's eyes, and claim the dog ate it. Except you don't even have a dog.TooMany2cvs said:
jsf said:
All subject to the same legal oversight.
But different legal outcomes.jsf said:
If you emigrate to the USA, the buck stops with the USA supreme court, the UK court has no oversight for citizens on US soil.
Just like the ECJ doesn't over European citizens on European soil...If you're British in France and break a "European law", the French courts deal with you as having breached French law, because that European law has been implemented in French law.
If you're the French government, though, and break European law, then the ECJ will be where that breach is dealt with.
Let's take a topical example. If the UK government wasn't implementing this "historic interest" MOT exemption restriction, from the Roadworthiness Directive, the UK government would be being dealt with for that in the ECJ. Once it's implemented, then if you don't MOT your modified 1970s car, then you'll be seeing a UK magistrate over it, not the ECJ.
Just like the US would be up before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea if they start taking the piss in Mexican waters, or could go before the World Trade Organisation's Dispute Settlement Body, or the UN's Dispute Tribunal, or whatever other supranational court enforces whichever international treaties they may be involved in a breach of.
jsf said:
I was under the impression you had a problem with the UK going through the EU costing line by line.
No, I've always been quite clear that's not the case. Perhaps you could point me to where I've been unclear, and I can clarify whatever's caused you this confusion?jsf said:
Maybe you can tell me what you have a problem with in how the UK is handling the bill issue.
I don't understand why the UK is making such a melodramatic stand about dealing with it later, rather than just sitting down and going through the costings. It's like a teenager not wanting to do his homework before dinner. "I'll do it afterwards". No, you bloody won't. You'll be on whatsinstasnaptindr all night - then shuffle your feet, refusing to meet the Geography teacher's eyes, and claim the dog ate it. Except you don't even have a dog.There is no place for the ECJ to have any jurisdiction in the UK once we leave.
I personally know someone who took an EU government (not UK in this instance) to court at the ECJ and won, over ruling the national court. That cant be allowed to happen once we have left the EU, EU law no longer applies.
I expect the UK wants to get on with the trade side of the issue because they see the first issues dragging on for a long time, that reason may be EU driven and they see no way round it short term. With that in mind it would not serve business well if we keep to this current format.
Why wouldn't you want to do both in parallel? You cant sort the Irish issue without getting onto customs arrangements.
jsf said:
The legal outcome would be judged by the UK court judges using UK law only under the normal system of a sovereign state, under the current system you can take your case to the ECJ if you are not satisfied with the UK judgement.
...
I personally know someone who took an EU government (not UK in this instance) to court at the ECJ and won, over ruling the national court.
You probably don't realise this, but you're agreeing with me......
I personally know someone who took an EU government (not UK in this instance) to court at the ECJ and won, over ruling the national court.
The national court rule against UK law.
You can take the UK government to the court if you feel that that UK law breaches European law.
jsf said:
That cant be allowed to happen once we have left the EU, EU law no longer applies.
Depends, doesn't it?If the UK wants to remain inside ANY of the European institutions, then breaches of those institutions' rules are dealt with at the ECJ. Euratom is one that's hit the headlines.
That's really no different to any other supranational court - apart from the fixation on it being the ECJ.
jsf said:
Why wouldn't you want to do both in parallel?
Why insist on it, apart from to be awkward? Why not just get it done and out the way, then move on?jsf said:
You cant sort the Irish issue without getting onto customs arrangements.
Indeed you can't. But that has nothing to do with the exit bill...I don't think you understand, we are leaving the EU, European law will no longer apply.
What the EU want is that with regards to citizens rights, the ECJ will still have oversight of UK resident EU citizens, that's not an acceptable position.
We are also leaving the EU treaties and bodies, if we agree to continue with some of the institutions, new treaties will have to be written that will set out what body arbitrates.
I suspect the main reason we are leaving Euratom is because of the way it has been used to implement law that shouldn't have been included.
Have you read the Euratom treaty? It includes many laws that control other aspects of EU law other than the nuclear issues most people would expect it to. For example it sets out in there how ECJ judges are appointed and how the ECJ works, EU worker pension rights and tax regimes, lots of areas that should have been included in the Lisbon treaty. Why that was done I'll leave you to work out. But based on its contents the UK certainly couldn't remain subject to it as a sovereign nation.
Take a look yourself, its hilarious. It starts to get fun from page 73 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/fi...
What the EU want is that with regards to citizens rights, the ECJ will still have oversight of UK resident EU citizens, that's not an acceptable position.
We are also leaving the EU treaties and bodies, if we agree to continue with some of the institutions, new treaties will have to be written that will set out what body arbitrates.
I suspect the main reason we are leaving Euratom is because of the way it has been used to implement law that shouldn't have been included.
Have you read the Euratom treaty? It includes many laws that control other aspects of EU law other than the nuclear issues most people would expect it to. For example it sets out in there how ECJ judges are appointed and how the ECJ works, EU worker pension rights and tax regimes, lots of areas that should have been included in the Lisbon treaty. Why that was done I'll leave you to work out. But based on its contents the UK certainly couldn't remain subject to it as a sovereign nation.
Take a look yourself, its hilarious. It starts to get fun from page 73 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/fi...
jsf said:
I don't think you understand, we are leaving the EU, European law will no longer apply.
I do understand that. What I don't think YOU understand is that getting totally shot of the ECJ from oversight of anything UK is really not quite that straightforward.jsf said:
What the EU want is that with regards to citizens rights, the ECJ will still have oversight of UK resident EU citizens, that's not an acceptable position.
That's not what the ECJ does or is for... Now, or later.jsf said:
We are also leaving the EU treaties and bodies,
And that's the bit that's still up in the air...[quote]if we agree to continue with some of the institutions, new treaties will have to be written that will set out what body arbitrates.
Euratom - without being in that, we have a MAJOR problem in dealing with nuclear medicine, as well as fuel for power stations, submarines etc - without renegotiating with the IAEA instead. If we stay in Euratom, then the ECJ ONLY has jurisdiction over the UK's dealings with Euratom rules. But - no - that would be the ECJ, and that's a red line... <rolls eyes> So instead there's going to be lots more work to avoid the obvious solution.
jsf said:
I suspect the main reason we are leaving Euratom is because of the way it has been used to implement law that shouldn't have been included.
Have you read the Euratom treaty? It includes many laws that control other aspects of EU law other than the nuclear issues most people would expect it to. For example it sets out in there how ECJ judges are appointed and how the ECJ works, EU worker pension rights and tax regimes, lots of areas that should have been included in the Lisbon treaty. Why that was done I'll leave you to work out. But based on its contents the UK certainly couldn't remain subject to it as a sovereign nation.
Take a look yourself, its hilarious. It starts to get fun from page 73 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/fi...
"Consolidated version of the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community"Have you read the Euratom treaty? It includes many laws that control other aspects of EU law other than the nuclear issues most people would expect it to. For example it sets out in there how ECJ judges are appointed and how the ECJ works, EU worker pension rights and tax regimes, lots of areas that should have been included in the Lisbon treaty. Why that was done I'll leave you to work out. But based on its contents the UK certainly couldn't remain subject to it as a sovereign nation.
Take a look yourself, its hilarious. It starts to get fun from page 73 https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/fi...
Euratom was established in 1957...
BTW, the header on p73 might have been a clue - "Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union" - that IS part of the Lisbon Treaty... That whole "Protocols" section from p73 on is background extracts from various treaties that inform the actual Euratom documentation.
But thank you for proving you're just out to look for things you think might be problems, without actually understanding what you're looking at.
TooMany2cvs said:
I don't understand why the UK is making such a melodramatic stand about dealing with it later, rather than just sitting down and going through the costings. It's like a teenager not wanting to do his homework before dinner. "I'll do it afterwards". No, you bloody won't. You'll be on whatsinstasnaptindr all night - then shuffle your feet, refusing to meet the Geography teacher's eyes, and claim the dog ate it. Except you don't even have a dog.
What melodrama?We accepted their timetable.
They presented a few bills and we turned them over. The EU have told us to tell them what we think we owe. We now await vol.3.
The very fact that they have presented multiple figures, and are now telling us to tell them what we think we owe makes me strongly suspect your belief that everything is costed properly and clearly is misplaced.
This should be very easy. But nothing to do with EU finances is easy, transparent, "fair" etc.
The only people I've seen getting melodramatic are Barnier and ///ajd. Has anyone seen them in the same room together?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff