How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[gooner1]

gooner1 said:

toppstuff said:

JagLover said:

But the EU does not realistically need its own army to defend against external threats. The most likely use for such a force is to suppress internal independence movements.

Truly chap , go to a cafe in Stockholm, Dublin or Amsterdam and offer that point of view and people would burst out laughing.

You really should go and spend some time there. You are so far off !

Genuine question, why would the inhabitants of Dublin need/desire an EU army.

[wc98]

toppstuff said:

Truly chap , go to a cafe in Stockholm, Dublin or Amsterdam and offer that point of view and people would burst out laughing.

You really should go and spend some time there. You are so far off !

how about you drag your arse away from the cosmopolitan capital cities and head out into the country a bit. you might actually realise that city dwellers don't have a monopoly on valid opinions ,and shock ,horror, a different opinion.

[Nickgnome]

loafer123 said:

s1962a said:

Do those outside London understand that the square mile contributes 11% of total UK tax take? If you took the whole of London the figure would be much higher. Given that Brexit threatens UK financial services, this tax take will most likely decrease. What are we going to replace that with?

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-...

This is useful;

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...

6.5% of UK GDP comes from Financial Services.

Of that, approximately 25% is through trade with the EU, so around 1.6%.


If we lose 20% of that as a result of a No Deal Brexit, (20% is quite alot, given most FIs have already got local regulation working around the EU) that would be 0.32% of GDP.

Of course, as you rightly point out, tax take is disproportionate to GDP, so the loss in tax take might be substantially more than the proportion that implies.

Please check out my post at 11:26 this indicates how much the SE and London contribute per head as opposed to other areas which are subsidised.

It's not just about simple GDP

[RalphyM]

Nickgnome said:

I did read some of them and found it very informative. Thank you

Yes, some posters do get a bit heated on here from time to time.

The question is, would the Government defy the will of Parliament? I would think it highly unlikely.

I was under the impression that an SI could be used to alter the definition of (Exit Day) as stated in EU withdrawal Act. I accept the Government would need to raise the SI.

Can fast-tracking legislation be used if necessary? I believe there is precedent.

It's not about defying the will, it is about options. The motion might be "extend the withdrawal period". However, to do this they need to introduce a new bill to amend the current withdrawal act, get EU to agree unanimously and possible get a bill to authorise this.

I qualified my original post around SIs.They can alter the legislation but only so far as the original act grants that power. There are no powers in the act to allow SIs to alter the date.

You can fastrack legislation but only if all members of both houses are in agreement. As we know this is not the case so you will inevitable be bogged down in Parliamentary process.

[RalphyM]

Nickgnome said:

You are wrong. Parliament has the ability to stop it if they so vote.

You are not wrong on this. However, the timescale to do so given Parliamentary process is extremely limited. It also requires the EU to unanimously agree (for an extension) or the ECJ to agree it can be revoked, due next week I believe. In the latter, you then come up against how to do this without being destroyed at the next election.

In all cases, the government is the only place that can introduce the new legislation. If they don't have the appetite, nothing happens and on the 29th we leave in whatever form that looks like.

[Pan Pan Pan]

toppstuff said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

So are you contending that if the UK had fallen to the Nazis in 1939-40, the US would have, or even could have launched a D-Day from the other side of the Atlantic? It was only The UK`s non capitulation in 39-40 that made Europe`s freedom from Nazi Germany even a possibility. let alone the fact it is now.
The ruins of Europe was caused by Nazi Germany, Do you think the odd commemoration here and there is sufficient to pay back what the UK, let alone the US gave to help free Europe from the Nazis?
Perhaps the countries steering the EU should be graded in accordance of what they have put into the project, rather than what they have taken out, and that would put the UK in a very different position to the one it has held as an EU member. Why is Germany seen as the most influential member of the EU? Surely each countries vote should be either equal, or at commensurate to what they actually want to contribute to the project, only it currently clearly is not.
The peaceful pact Europe enjoys now is because of NATO, not the EU. Strangely a defence organization that the richest country in the EU (Germany), does not even pay its due subscription to help maintain.
How do you feel things would be in Europe now, if the UK and US had not given so much to free it from the Nazis? Some even maintain that Russia could have beaten the Nazis on their own, especially odd as Stalin signed a peace pact with Nazi Germany, and even supplied Nazi Germany with war materiel. Even if Russia could have beaten the Nazi`s on its own (which it could not) How do you think life in Europe would be under the USSR? You do know about the Berlin wall don't you?
Your own words have said it, A deal which might be good for the 27 countries of the EU is not good for the UK, and vice versa, proving that the UK being in the EU was never good for the UK, Good for the EU perhaps, but not for the UK. Which is why many in the UK realize this and want out of it.

I truly do not need an education in WW2 history. I could probably beat you in the subject in a pub quiz.

My views on the subject and how we could / should interact with the EU are the complete opposite of yours.

And yet you seem to have forgotten, that it was the UK that made it possible for the EU to even exist. When this was pointed out In The EU`s Brussels forum chamber. the look on the faces of so many of the members there, changed from smug condescension to sheepish realization that what was being said was so very true. Perhaps they do not like the fact that it was the UK and US that ultimately made it possible for them to be there. I liken it something DeGaulle said to a US general, after the hostilities were over, when he stated he wanted all US soldiers off French soil as soon as possible, The general replied, do you mean the ones buried in it as well?

[ITP]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Nickgnome said:

ECJ to rule on Morning morning whether to uphold the AG's advice.

The parliamentary vote on Tuesday which most consider will be lost.

Dominic Grieve's amendment comes into play.

SI drafted and implemented to extend Article 50 (Definition of Leave Date) subject to agreement with Eu.

Parliament takes control.

Or

The government forced to adopt the Fasttrack procedure to withdraw Article 50 unilaterally. (Highly unlikely)

The UK is stuck down a cul de sac with no consensus to turn around.

Parliament does not want this deal.

Parliament does not want no deal.

Parliament does not want to extend A50.

Parliament does not want to cancel A50.

Parliament does not want a GE.

Parliament does not want a second referendum.

The EU does not want a different deal.

Where is the solution?

Since parliament gave the choice to the people, and promised to enact the result, the only thing they should do, to uphold their integrity now and for the future trust in politics, is to make sure we leave.

For sure, they should have tried to come up with the best deal, but if the EU does not want to give us a good deal, and why would they, we are leaving, then they need to say ‘thanks but that doesn’t meet the criteria’. We’ll leave without a deal and negotiate a new one.
Anything else means you have just caved in.

If that causes short term difficulties then so be it, caving in and staying in now would give the EU huge confidence to accelerate the federal dream as they would feel no-one can ever leave in reality and they could push through whatever they want. What’s next? Forced into the euro? Fiscal control over taxes etc?
What are the remainers ‘red lines’ going forward if we stay in the EU with respect to a more federal state I wonder?

The problem is with our lot is they thought Europe is bound to give us a good deal, so we won’t even plan for no deal, even though all the evidence suggested the EU would not budge on anything. Cameron asked for changes and he was just brushed away, what made them think they would have more success?
In reality I would imagine if we left most European businesses would want to quickly sort out trade with us, even if the EU politicians didn’t to punish us, but I would imagine Buisness would win that one.

But we are where we are with the tories running about like headless chickens and labour just desperately trying to force a general election using the chaos as an opportunity to cease power, and seemingly not bothered if we are in or out as long as they get in.

It’s all very embarrassing for the UK parliament.

[loafer123]

Nickgnome said:

loafer123 said:

s1962a said:

Do those outside London understand that the square mile contributes 11% of total UK tax take? If you took the whole of London the figure would be much higher. Given that Brexit threatens UK financial services, this tax take will most likely decrease. What are we going to replace that with?

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-...

This is useful;

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explaine...

6.5% of UK GDP comes from Financial Services.

Of that, approximately 25% is through trade with the EU, so around 1.6%.


If we lose 20% of that as a result of a No Deal Brexit, (20% is quite alot, given most FIs have already got local regulation working around the EU) that would be 0.32% of GDP.

Of course, as you rightly point out, tax take is disproportionate to GDP, so the loss in tax take might be substantially more than the proportion that implies.

Please check out my post at 11:26 this indicates how much the SE and London contribute per head as opposed to other areas which are subsidised.

It's not just about simple GDP

That is why I put "Of course, as you rightly point out, tax take is disproportionate to GDP, so the loss in tax take might be substantially more than the proportion that implies."

Even so, let's not pretend it is going to threaten the financial solvency of our nation.

[wc98]

toppstuff said:

Knowing my luck as a rare remainer on PH, your wife probably worked on a project with fans of Gert Wilders !

genuine lol at that she works for a large american privately owned company that i understand are not fans of trump. i doubt they would employ any wilders fans, i certainly hope not !

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

Hayek said:

How about...

Conservative Manifesto 2017 said:

As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or
customs union

The TM deal achieves that. If we where members we would have votes and influence. In the TM deal we just follow the rules.

Well done team leave you managed to turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU. Hope you are proud.

When you've spent the last few months saying EEA membership is the right answer you can ps off trying to criticise leavers regarding the UK potentially becoming a vassal state...

The EEA option would have given the UK much greater ability to reject EU regulations and the UK would have had much greater ability to vary the terms. The downside for some leaves is that FOML might remain. The TM deal has no FOML but makes the UK a vessel state with no ability to exit the deal without the EU permission.

The reason we have the TM deal is leavers, BJ, DD, JRM, the ERG, never had any credible plan for brexit. All they have done is propose plans for cake and eat it, and inventing unicorns.

[kayc]

Pan Pan Pan said:

And yet you seem to have forgotten, that it was the UK that made it possible for the EU to even exist. When this was pointed out In The EU`s Brussels forum chamber. the look on the faces of so many of the members there, changed from smug condescension to sheepish realization that what was being said was so very true. Perhaps they do not like the fact that it was the UK and US that ultimately made it possible for them to be there. I liken it something DeGaulle said to a US general, after the hostilities were over, when he stated he wanted all US soldiers off French soil as soon as possible, The general replied, do you mean the ones buried in it as well?

Well put that man..its amazing how the sacrifice has been forgotten..as I posted previously.

[BigMon]

Blackpuddin said:

BigMon said:

I'd love to meet these Europeans who think Brexit is a 'great idea'.

I play an online game and am in a clan with people from all over Europe. Eire, Croatia, Germany, Belgium, Holland, etc, etc. There is regularly about 20-30 of us online at any one time.

Now, whenever Brexit has been brought up (not that much, but we have discussed it) not one of them has said 'well done'. Equally there isn't massive hostility, more a sort of bemusement as to why we are shooting ourselves in the foot (as they see it).

Only a small sample admittedly, but you'd think out of 20-30 Europeans at least one of them would be saying 'well done' if the Brexit view in Europe is as it is presented on here.

What's the average age of your clan? Genuine question.

Right the way from early twenties (some are at the university in Maastricht) to mid-forties.

[Nickgnome]

RalphyM said:

You are not wrong on this. However, the timescale to do so given Parliamentary process is extremely limited. It also requires the EU to unanimously agree (for an extension) or the ECJ to agree it can be revoked, due next week I believe. In the latter, you then come up against how to do this without being destroyed at the next election.

In all cases, the government is the only place that can introduce the new legislation. If they don't have the appetite, nothing happens and on the 29th we leave in whatever form that looks like.

I didn't say there would not be consequences. I'm not sure it would be that bad though with Corben as the Labour leader.

Next week will be interesting to follow.

[Nickgnome]

loafer123 said:

That is why I put "Of course, as you rightly point out, tax take is disproportionate to GDP, so the loss in tax take might be substantially more than the proportion that implies."

Even so, let's not pretend it is going to threaten the financial solvency of our nation.

We would (will) survive.

Sadly it is the less fortunate who will be hit most. Those with significant assets just move it around.

[gooner1]

Nickgnome said:

The question is, would the Government defy the will of Parliament? I would think it highly unlikely.

Snipped for brevity .

Is this the same government that were found to be in contempt of Parliament quite recently?
Was that not for defying the will of Parliament?

[wst]

ITP said:

Since parliament gave the choice to the people, and promised to enact the result

Parliament gave the choice. The Government promised to enact the result.

The Government's choices mean nothing without the consent of Parliament.

It's like if a party runs a GE campaign off the basis that they will make pigs fly - and ends up in Government. Unless they can get Parliament to vote to make pigs fly, they can't do anything. That's why being able to command a majority in the HoC is so important...

[RalphyM]

gooner1 said:

Snipped for brevity .

Is this the same government that were found to be in contempt of Parliament quite recently?
Was that not for defying the will of Parliament?

That was different.It used the humble address mechanism.

The Grieve amendment only allows parliament to recommend the Government pursues a particular course of action. They are under no compunction to do so. To not follow would not be in contempt.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

Mrr T said:

Hayek said:

How about...

Conservative Manifesto 2017 said:

As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or
customs union

The TM deal achieves that. If we where members we would have votes and influence. In the TM deal we just follow the rules.

Well done team leave you managed to turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU. Hope you are proud.

When you've spent the last few months saying EEA membership is the right answer you can ps off trying to criticise leavers regarding the UK potentially becoming a vassal state...

The EEA option would have given the UK much greater ability to reject EU regulations and the UK would have had much greater ability to vary the terms. The downside for some leaves is that FOML might remain. The TM deal has no FOML but makes the UK a vessel state with no ability to exit the deal without the EU permission.

The reason we have the TM deal is leavers, BJ, DD, JRM, the ERG, never had any credible plan for brexit. All they have done is propose plans for cake and eat it, and inventing unicorns.

The UK never ever got any cake from the EU, it sent over lots of cake, but didn't get back any cake it did not already have to eat. You can only eat cake if you either have cake in the first place, or you don't send your cake somewhere else, for others to eat.

[Nickgnome]

gooner1 said:

Snipped for brevity .

Is this the same government that were found to be in contempt of Parliament quite recently?
Was that not for defying the will of Parliament?

Yes, and they got a bloody nose. Although I am uneasy that the precedent now set will have long-term consequences.

I believe there will be a lot of cross-party negotiations to ensure that the government is able to comply with the will of parliament, whatever that may be.

[Thorodin]

gooner1 said:

Nickgnome said:

The question is, would the Government defy the will of Parliament? I would think it highly unlikely.

Snipped for brevity .

Is this the same government that were found to be in contempt of Parliament quite recently?
Was that not for defying the will of Parliament?

It seems the whips are terrified the MP's will rebel against the government's will. They are threatening all objectors (to the PM's 'deal') with deselection. We all thought the Constituents were rather important in that respect. The Government has proved it is corrupt and untrustworthy. Heaven help us if it falls and JC takes over.