Discussion:
Brexit no deal will hurt the EU more than us
Add Reply
pullgees
2017-11-24 10:00:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-25 14:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?

Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than the UK as they export more to us than they import.

In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.

Of course Brextemists will point out that we can boost trade with the rest of the world, but only once we have negotiated replacements for the 65 or so agreements the EU already has with other countries like Turkey, Canada...
pullgees
2017-11-26 18:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than the UK as they export more to us than they import.
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.
Of course Brextemists will point out that we can boost trade with the rest of the world, but only once we have negotiated replacements for the 65 or so agreements the EU already has with other countries like Turkey, Canada...
Considering you are a stuck record I thought you might like it.
Ophelia
2017-11-28 14:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than
a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our
foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU
countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will
be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.
Of course Brextemists will point out that we can boost trade with the rest
of the world, but only once we have negotiated replacements for the 65 or
so agreements the EU already has with other countries like Turkey,
Canada...
Considering you are a stuck record I thought you might like it.

==

The leavers who are constantly going on about their high educational
attainment etc, still haven't cottoned on to the fact that we are all
laughing at them:))))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Altroy1
2017-11-26 17:54:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than
Aparently, Britain sells more to Ireland than to China and India combined.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our
foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU
countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will
be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.
Of course Brextemists will point out that we can boost trade with the rest
of the world, but only once we have negotiated replacements for the 65 or
so agreements the EU already has with other countries like Turkey,
Canada...
The Brextremists will have to replace all the lost EU trade by negotiating a new
trade deal with Make America Great Again. MAGA will impose a trade deal with the
protection and promotion of MAGA's jobs No.1 priority. Strict enforcement
procedures will be included to discourage recidivism. MAGA will make Brexiteers
adhere to the rules. That will not be a comfortable experience for the EU haters
as they don't like it when the EU robustly defends its political and economic
integrity.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-26 19:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they lose all my trade.
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than
Aparently, Britain sells more to Ireland than to China and India combined.
China and India only export, as they're 100 times better than anyone else.
--
Mike Hallett discussing missed snooker shots on Sky Sports: "Stephen Hendry jumps on Steve Davis's misses every chance he gets."
Altroy1
2017-11-27 14:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on at Asda
next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns out to be far
down the road.

After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on offer is
more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains about this
especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If you don't like
what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Ian Jackson
2017-11-27 14:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
--
Ian
Yellow
2017-11-27 17:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.

Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 17:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
They told me to piss off for not wearing a tshirt on a hot summer's day.
--
Mike Hallett discussing missed snooker shots on Sky Sports: "Stephen Hendry jumps on Steve Davis's misses every chance he gets."
Yellow
2017-11-27 18:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:51:20 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you.
Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
They told me to piss off for not wearing a tshirt on a hot summer's day.
Well, to be fair, you deserved that.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 18:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:51:20 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you.
Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
They told me to piss off for not wearing a tshirt on a hot summer's day.
Well, to be fair, you deserved that.
This isn't the Victorian ages, and Asda isn't a Muslim organisation.
--
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants -- Whitney Brown
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 18:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:51:20 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you.
Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
They told me to piss off for not wearing a tshirt on a hot summer's day.
Well, to be fair, you deserved that.
You must be absolutely horrified when you go to a beach or a swimming pool.
--
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants -- Whitney Brown
pamela
2017-11-27 19:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:54:40 -0000, Altroy1
Post by pullgees
On Friday, 24 November 2017 10:00:18 UTC, pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-
b
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by pullgees
rexit-lea ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a
whole]
than
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my
sales to you of lucrative financial services, you sell more
to me than I do to you.
Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from
now on at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next
door" Asda turns out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that
what's on offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos.
Mr Brexit complains about this especially as Asda is further
away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If you don't like what's on offer,
piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality.
But that is no different to all the other stupid analogies
people in this group keep coming up with for some unfathomable
reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of
imagining that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
The point is that Asda is not going to make a special deal with Mr
Brexit.

Mr Brexit expects too much by wanting Asda to be especially
accomodating because he's not shopping at Tesco any more. Sadly
Mr Brexit won't be getting any special deal.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 20:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:54:40 -0000, Altroy1
Post by pullgees
On Friday, 24 November 2017 10:00:18 UTC, pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-
b
Post by Yellow
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by pullgees
rexit-lea ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my
sales to you of lucrative financial services, you sell more
to me than I do to you.
Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from
now on at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next
door" Asda turns out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that
what's on offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos.
Mr Brexit complains about this especially as Asda is further
away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If you don't like what's on offer,
piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality.
But that is no different to all the other stupid analogies
people in this group keep coming up with for some unfathomable
reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of
imagining that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
The point is that Asda is not going to make a special deal with Mr
Brexit.
Mr Brexit expects too much by wanting Asda to be especially
accomodating because he's not shopping at Tesco any more. Sadly
Mr Brexit won't be getting any special deal.
No, Mr Brexit just wants a fair deal, something which he never got from Tesco / EU.
--
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips
Altroy1
2017-11-27 22:03:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
Its an Allegory. In the Allegory for Asda substitute Make America Great Again.

When Make America Great Again is approached by Mrs May for a trade deal, MAGA
will put its JOBS and its interests FIRST. For "piss off" think about MAGA's
300% tariffs imposed on countries, like Canada & Bombardier, that fall foul of
one of MAGAs trade rules.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 22:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:44:44 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-lea
ves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole]
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they
lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on
at Asda next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns
out to be far down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on
offer is more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains
about this especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If
you don't like what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Good analogy.
No it isn't. It is stupid because it has no basis in reality. But that
is no different to all the other stupid analogies people in this group
keep coming up with for some unfathomable reason.
Why not just discuss the issues as they really are instead of imagining
that ADSA is going to tell someone to "piss off"?
Its an Allegory. In the Allegory for Asda substitute Make America Great Again.
When Make America Great Again is approached by Mrs May for a trade deal, MAGA
will put its JOBS and its interests FIRST. For "piss off" think about MAGA's
300% tariffs imposed on countries, like Canada & Bombardier, that fall foul of
one of MAGAs trade rules.
What a bunch of fucking children. Governments should not be intervening in trade AT ALL. Let the private companies buy and sell as they wish.
--
A fat girl served me in McDonald's at lunchtime. She said "sorry about the wait". I said, "Don't worry, you'll find a way to lose it eventually"
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 16:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Altroy1
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by pullgees
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
Post by R. Mark Clayton
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more
than
Post by R. Mark Clayton
the UK as they export more to us than they import.
Its like going into Tescos and asserting "Other than my sales to you of
lucrative financial services, you sell more to me than I do to you. Gimme a good
deal. Failure to do so will hurt you more than it will hurt me.
Indeed, I can simply go next door to Asda. I lose nothing, they lose all my trade.
Mr Brexit walks out of Tescos in a huff intending to shop from now on at Asda
next door. Problem turns out to be that "next door" Asda turns out to be far
down the road.
After that down the road hike, Adsa informs Mr Brexit that what's on offer is
more or less the prices offered by Tescos. Mr Brexit complains about this
especially as Asda is further away. Asda tells Mr Brexit "If you don't like
what's on offer, piss off and go shop somewhere else".
Bullshit. Customer chooses where to shop. UK chooses who to trade with. We take the best deals not one forced on us by a silly little club.
--
Worlds most powerful nob enlarger - a space suit with a fly zip
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-26 19:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than the UK as they export more to us than they import.
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.
Oh my god a whole 6%! I doubt anyone'll notice. Natural fluctuations are probably more than that.
--
Confucius say: "Foolish man give wife grand piano. Wise man give wife upright organ."
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-27 12:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than the UK as they export more to us than they import.
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.
Oh my god a whole 6%! I doubt anyone'll notice. Natural fluctuations are probably more than that.
Most people noticed the crash in 2008 (12%) and previous recessions in the early 1980's and 1990' of about that magnitude (3M unemployed etc.)
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-27 16:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
How many times have we been round this in this group?
Indeed in absolute terms Brexit will hurt the EU [as a whole] more than the UK as they export more to us than they import.
In relative terms however, apart from Ireland, no EU country has more than a few percent of its trade with the UK, whereas for the UK it is half our foreign trade, so if tariffs and compliance reduce trade by 10% the EU countries will suffer approximately 0.5% hit on GDP, whereas the UK will be hit ~6% or half as bad as the hit in the crash of 2008 - 9.
Oh my god a whole 6%! I doubt anyone'll notice. Natural fluctuations are probably more than that.
Most people noticed the crash in 2008 (12%) and previous recessions in the early 1980's and 1990' of about that magnitude (3M unemployed etc.)
I didn't. In fact wasn't that the year my mortgage rate fell dramatically? I was over the moon.
--
What's the difference between a hooker and a lawyer?
A hooker stops screwing you when you die.
MM
2017-11-26 10:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.

MM
tim
2017-11-26 10:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
but there's no-one else in the queue to leave

but there bloody well will be if we leave without a deal and still make a
success of things
MM
2017-11-27 11:08:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
but there's no-one else in the queue to leave
but there bloody well will be if we leave without a deal and still make a
success of things
There's that "if" again...

Crops up everywhere Brexiters speak or write.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-11-26 10:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
MM
2017-11-27 11:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.

Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-11-27 11:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
MM
2017-11-28 09:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-11-28 09:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-28 11:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
Try this in a restaurant near you - go in, sit down, enjoy a slap up meal with wine etc., leave without paying...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/serial-restaurant-nuisance-who-tormented-13784621
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2017-10-19/man-banned-from-manchester-city-centre-for-abusing-restaurant-staff/
Norman Wells
2017-11-28 16:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
Try this in a restaurant near you - go in, sit down, enjoy a slap up meal with wine etc., leave without paying...
That analogy just doesn't hold water though, does it? The EU has a
kitty behind the bar from which the restaurant is paid. It's a kitty
that we've paid well over our share into for the last 40 years. The
bill is being paid for out of what we've already put by.

And we've said that we intend to eat no more EU funded meals in future.

We owe no more.
MM
2017-11-29 09:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
Try this in a restaurant near you - go in, sit down, enjoy a slap up meal with wine etc., leave without paying...
That analogy just doesn't hold water though, does it? The EU has a
kitty behind the bar from which the restaurant is paid. It's a kitty
that we've paid well over our share into for the last 40 years. The
bill is being paid for out of what we've already put by.
And we've said that we intend to eat no more EU funded meals in future.
We owe no more.
On the contrary, we do, and this morning it's been announced that the
new figure could be as high as £50bn. Indeed, arch-Brexiter Chris
Grayling said "Paying Brexit bill is Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling

MM
Norman Wells
2017-11-29 10:09:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
Try this in a restaurant near you - go in, sit down, enjoy a slap up meal with wine etc., leave without paying...
That analogy just doesn't hold water though, does it? The EU has a
kitty behind the bar from which the restaurant is paid. It's a kitty
that we've paid well over our share into for the last 40 years. The
bill is being paid for out of what we've already put by.
And we've said that we intend to eat no more EU funded meals in future.
We owe no more.
On the contrary, we do, and this morning it's been announced that the
new figure could be as high as £50bn. Indeed, arch-Brexiter Chris
Grayling said "Paying Brexit bill is Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
We will pay what we're legally obliged to pay. I've always said that.
What we're doing now is holding out a carrot to the EU in order to get
discussions moving on what is really important, ie trade and future
relationships.

But that money isn't ringfenced. It will be conditional on reaching a
satisfactory overall agreement on trade and other matters. If we can't
do that, the money won't be paid. So, the EU has a considerable
incentive to make sure it happens.

At last, it seems we may be on the verge of entering into proper
negotiations and dealings rather than just posturing and posing.
MM
2017-11-29 09:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
On the contrary, we do, and this morning it's been announced that the
new figure could be as high as £50bn. Indeed, arch-Brexiter Chris
Grayling said "Paying Brexit bill is Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling

MM
Norman Wells
2017-11-29 09:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave. Some kind
of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in under some pretext or
other that the government will sell to the country as a successful
referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like those
Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free port status because
they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial settlement so
much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all other
issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the money,
we don't have to pay anything, do we?
On the contrary, we do, and this morning it's been announced that the
new figure could be as high as £50bn. Indeed, arch-Brexiter Chris
Grayling said "Paying Brexit bill is Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
So, the money is what's important to the EU then, just as I said and you
denied.

Anyway, it hardly advances us:

"Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, said the sum of more than
£50bn apparently agreed on Tuesday was speculation".

So, there we have it. The sum was 'apparently' agreed, though why is
not explained, and it's 'speculation', as clarified by none other than
the supremely important, er, transport secretary.

It doesn't have the ring of an official government announcement exactly,
does it?

And Grayling isn't exactly wholly credible on a matter closer to his
home patch of transport:

"Asked if he would rule out a hard border, he said: “I think we’ve
already done that, we’ve said that there are simple ways to make sure
that we do not have to have border posts in the way that there were in
the past.”

'Simple ways', huh. Oh yeah?
pamela
2017-11-29 11:05:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:14:31 +0000, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 11:49:27 +0000, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:39:53 +0000, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-
no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU
the preservation OF the EU is far more important than
money.
Then why do they keep going on about it so much?
Because Brexiters are fearful that we won't actually leave.
Some kind of deal will be met in 2019/20/21 to keep us in
under some pretext or other that the government will sell to
the country as a successful referendum outcome.
Many Brexiters will then breathe a sigh of relief -- like
those Grimsby seafood processors who currently seek free
port status because they fear tariffs.
What I asked was why the EU goes on about the financial
settlement so much if, as you say, the money doesn't matter
to them?
Because it serves to hold Britain's feet to the fire over all
other issues related to Brexit.
But now you've let it slip that the EU isn't bothered about the
money, we don't have to pay anything, do we?
On the contrary, we do, and this morning it's been announced
that the new figure could be as high as £50bn. Indeed,
arch-Brexiter Chris Grayling said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-
bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
MM
I just love it how Norman seems to get the wrong end of the stick.
I used to read his posts but they are works of misunderstanding
and I don't have time for them.
James Harris
2017-11-26 13:39:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.

In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-11-26 18:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games.
The EU, politically, wants to win and those of us who see this therefore
feel the only option in the end will probably be to walk away and go
from there once the dust has settled.
Post by James Harris
Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get.
They want to win.
Post by James Harris
But they want a deal at the end of the day.
I don't think "a deal" is as important as being seen to win.
James Harris
2017-11-26 19:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
I do wish, though, that the government had alternatives. Americans - not
just Trump - have indicated they are willing to help us leave the EU.
But May seems not to be taking them up on their offer. I fear she is
being dangerously naive. But I can only wait and see.
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games.
The EU, politically, wants to win and those of us who see this therefore
feel the only option in the end will probably be to walk away and go
from there once the dust has settled.
On that, I fear that May will give away more than just money. What's
happened to her "awkward woman" character?
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get.
They want to win.
Post by James Harris
But they want a deal at the end of the day.
I don't think "a deal" is as important as being seen to win.
It seems unlikely there will be a trade deal. But there will almost
certainly be a deal of some sort.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-11-26 20:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-b
rexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU
the preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its
project ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to
leave. The EU's priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and
simple - and that is why we should leave.
Cameron obtained a very clearly stated written exemption from ever
closer union. What the EU does in this respect would have had no
effect on the UK.
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels
will protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of
brinkmanship games.
The EU, politically, wants to win and those of us who see this
therefore feel the only option in the end will probably be to
walk away and go from there once the dust has settled.
The walk-away car-crash Brexit is what Leavers turn to in despair
when they realise they can't get their act together to negotiate a
proper agreement.
James Harris
2017-11-26 22:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-b
rexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU
the preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its
project ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to
leave. The EU's priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and
simple - and that is why we should leave.
Cameron obtained a very clearly stated written exemption from ever
closer union. What the EU does in this respect would have had no
effect on the UK.
Not worth the paper it was written on. Integration will continue. Just
the other day the EU decided on closer integration on defence. Ever
closer union is in their DNA. A bit like the Borg.
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels
will protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of
brinkmanship games.
The EU, politically, wants to win and those of us who see this
therefore feel the only option in the end will probably be to
walk away and go from there once the dust has settled.
The walk-away car-crash Brexit is what Leavers turn to in despair
when they realise they can't get their act together to negotiate a
proper agreement.
That's the usual nonsense from Remainers who don't understand what's
going on. Certain sectors in the UK and the EU27 would be significantly
hurt by no deal but it would guarantee the UK greater freedom to
negotiate better global trade deals. So it would be short-term loss for
greater future opportunity. Where the balance in that lies is for the
government to determine.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-27 11:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?

Besides, doesn't Britain have a political objective, too? What is so
wrong with having political objectives? They are, after all, only
objectives!
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games.
The EU, politically, wants to win and those of us who see this therefore
feel the only option in the end will probably be to walk away and go
from there once the dust has settled.
"probably"?

You don't sound quite so certain now that all these problems are
coming to light.
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get.
They want to win.
Post by James Harris
But they want a deal at the end of the day.
I don't think "a deal" is as important as being seen to win.
Isn't this exactly what I said originally? Keeping the EU together as
an entity is more important than mere money.

MM
James Harris
2017-11-27 13:32:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No? Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?

Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-28 09:04:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?

MM
James Harris
2017-11-28 14:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-29 09:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.

MM
James Harris
2017-11-29 11:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.

And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-30 09:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"

Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.

Do you have the answer yet?
Post by James Harris
And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
Any club, and the EU is no exception, expects its members to abide by
the rules and follow procedure. If any member wants special treatment,
that is fine as long as the correct procedures are followed.

MM
James Harris
2017-11-30 16:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"
Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.
Do you have the answer yet?
Your presumption that my point was based on a specific rule is
incorrect. As above, you asserted that the UK "securing opt outs" was an
indication of the EU's beneficence and tolerance towards the UK. Quite
apart from how hard British PMs have had to fight for the "privilege"
(as you see it) of keeping to the rules that we had previously accepted
there is the small matter that concessions, once made, are almost
impossible to rescind. I was saying that these things should not be
privileges or concessions or acquiescences. They should be rights. Nor
should countries have to fight for the right to engage with the others
as suits them best. Nor, indeed, should countries by locked in to
schemes that are extremely hard to get out from. The whole EU model is
too rigid and inflexible and is causing anger across Europe. But it
doesn't need to be that way. The EU should think again, but is failing
to do so, it being wedded to the systems it has put in place already, no
matter how bad they are. I would hazard a guess that the EU almost NEVER
thinks of loosening its grip and passing controls back to the nation
states. All its thoughts are to go the other way and grab more power.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
But why should we have had to "secure opt outs"? Why should a country
not simply be able to join schemes if it wanted to? If the schemes were
good ones, wouldn't countries be queueing up to join them?
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
I'm not sure where you get that from. I would be behind the UK paying
its membership fee up until when we leave but not much more than that.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
Any club, and the EU is no exception, expects its members to abide by
the rules and follow procedure. If any member wants special treatment,
that is fine as long as the correct procedures are followed.
I doubt there's any member which has stuck by the rules more than the
UK. In fact, the rules say that on 29 March 2019 the EU is set to lose
its power over the UK. There is no/nada/zero requirement for the UK as
the seceding state to make any more payments of any kind. Are you happy
with that? Or is it that you only like EU rules when they suit your
prior beliefs?
--
James Harris
MM
2017-12-02 16:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:04:23 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"
Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.
Do you have the answer yet?
Your presumption that my point was based on a specific rule is
incorrect. As above, you asserted that the UK "securing opt outs" was an
indication of the EU's beneficence and tolerance towards the UK. Quite
apart from how hard British PMs have had to fight for the "privilege"
(as you see it) of keeping to the rules that we had previously accepted
there is the small matter that concessions, once made, are almost
impossible to rescind. I was saying that these things should not be
privileges or concessions or acquiescences. They should be rights. Nor
should countries have to fight for the right to engage with the others
as suits them best. Nor, indeed, should countries by locked in to
schemes that are extremely hard to get out from. The whole EU model is
too rigid and inflexible and is causing anger across Europe. But it
doesn't need to be that way. The EU should think again, but is failing
to do so, it being wedded to the systems it has put in place already, no
matter how bad they are. I would hazard a guess that the EU almost NEVER
thinks of loosening its grip and passing controls back to the nation
states. All its thoughts are to go the other way and grab more power.
First, the EU "model" is not causing anger across Europe. Sure, some
countries want different things, but are prepared to discuss them, not
just walk away. As for suggesting that our special treatment should be
accorded to us as of right, that's plain ridiculous. We knew what we
were signing up to. Also, the EU has already said that there will have
to be reforms. It has introduced many reforms in the past, so that's
nothing new. Juncker back in March presented options for reforming the
bloc to shore up its unity and popular support. What Britain wants is
to have its cake and eat it, and the EU ain't having that. Quite
rightly.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
But why should we have had to "secure opt outs"? Why should a country
not simply be able to join schemes if it wanted to? If the schemes were
good ones, wouldn't countries be queueing up to join them?
The rules. Read the Terms and Conditions we agreed to when we joined
or when new treaties came along later. We want special treatment? Then
we're going to have to negotiate.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
I'm not sure where you get that from. I would be behind the UK paying
its membership fee up until when we leave but not much more than that.
The £50bn is not the membership fee. It is to settle payment
commitments for future projects that we agreed to.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
Any club, and the EU is no exception, expects its members to abide by
the rules and follow procedure. If any member wants special treatment,
that is fine as long as the correct procedures are followed.
I doubt there's any member which has stuck by the rules more than the
UK. In fact, the rules say that on 29 March 2019 the EU is set to lose
its power over the UK. There is no/nada/zero requirement for the UK as
the seceding state to make any more payments of any kind. Are you happy
with that? Or is it that you only like EU rules when they suit your
prior beliefs?
It is now accepted that the so-called "divorce" payment will be spread
over many years, perhaps as long as 40 years. But whatever it is, we
committed to sharing the costs of future projects and we cannot weasel
out of them.

MM
James Harris
2017-12-03 16:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:04:23 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"
Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.
Do you have the answer yet?
Your presumption that my point was based on a specific rule is
incorrect. As above, you asserted that the UK "securing opt outs" was an
indication of the EU's beneficence and tolerance towards the UK. Quite
apart from how hard British PMs have had to fight for the "privilege"
(as you see it) of keeping to the rules that we had previously accepted
there is the small matter that concessions, once made, are almost
impossible to rescind. I was saying that these things should not be
privileges or concessions or acquiescences. They should be rights. Nor
should countries have to fight for the right to engage with the others
as suits them best. Nor, indeed, should countries by locked in to
schemes that are extremely hard to get out from. The whole EU model is
too rigid and inflexible and is causing anger across Europe. But it
doesn't need to be that way. The EU should think again, but is failing
to do so, it being wedded to the systems it has put in place already, no
matter how bad they are. I would hazard a guess that the EU almost NEVER
thinks of loosening its grip and passing controls back to the nation
states. All its thoughts are to go the other way and grab more power.
First, the EU "model" is not causing anger across Europe.
I disagree. Have you seen how many border fences have gone up
unilaterally in what is supposed to be a free-movement area? Are you
aware of the the rows that Brussels is having with Eastern states such
as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia? How do you think people feel in
once-thriving areas where their children have had to move to find work?
If you don't believe me, look at the rise of anti-EU feeling in Germany,
Italy and France.
Post by MM
Sure, some
countries want different things, but are prepared to discuss them, not
just walk away. As for suggesting that our special treatment should be
accorded to us as of right, that's plain ridiculous.
Why should you call it "special treatment"? Why not just say that some
countries don't want to do everything the others do? The EU only tries
to coerce members into compliance because it wants everyone to follow
the same rules - whether they want to or not.
Post by MM
We knew what we
were signing up to.
Agreed. We signed up to a common market, not a superstate.
Post by MM
Also, the EU has already said that there will have
to be reforms. It has introduced many reforms in the past, so that's
nothing new. Juncker back in March presented options for reforming the
bloc to shore up its unity and popular support. What Britain wants is
to have its cake and eat it, and the EU ain't having that. Quite
rightly.
Why should we or Denmark or Sweden or Romania or Croatia do what Mr
Juncker thinks is best?
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
But why should we have had to "secure opt outs"? Why should a country
not simply be able to join schemes if it wanted to? If the schemes were
good ones, wouldn't countries be queueing up to join them?
The rules. Read the Terms and Conditions we agreed to when we joined
or when new treaties came along later. We want special treatment? Then
we're going to have to negotiate.
The rules say that some changes can only be made with unanimity. What's
wrong with that?

Incidentally, your Mr Juncker wants to move many more decisions to QMV
so that individual states can have more rule changes imposed on them
without their agreement.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
I'm not sure where you get that from. I would be behind the UK paying
its membership fee up until when we leave but not much more than that.
The £50bn is not the membership fee. It is to settle payment
commitments for future projects that we agreed to.
I accept that we could continue to fund some projects. For example, if
there is a bridge in Bulgaria which is halfway across a valley we the
British taxpayer may well agree to fund it to completion. But I don't
see why we should fund projects the EU hasn't even started yet and which
we will not benefit from.

And don't you agree that the EU should start to adjust to a new, lower,
budget? It has to negotiate new spending from Jan 2021 anyway. But so
far it is trying to increase spending!
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
Any club, and the EU is no exception, expects its members to abide by
the rules and follow procedure. If any member wants special treatment,
that is fine as long as the correct procedures are followed.
I doubt there's any member which has stuck by the rules more than the
UK. In fact, the rules say that on 29 March 2019 the EU is set to lose
its power over the UK. There is no/nada/zero requirement for the UK as
the seceding state to make any more payments of any kind. Are you happy
with that? Or is it that you only like EU rules when they suit your
prior beliefs?
It is now accepted that the so-called "divorce" payment will be spread
over many years, perhaps as long as 40 years. But whatever it is, we
committed to sharing the costs of future projects and we cannot weasel
out of them.
That's nonsense. If you want to fund the EU far into the future why
don't you set up a standing order? We as a country are duty bound to pay
our dues, nothing more.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-12-04 10:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:24:37 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:04:23 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"
Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.
Do you have the answer yet?
Your presumption that my point was based on a specific rule is
incorrect. As above, you asserted that the UK "securing opt outs" was an
indication of the EU's beneficence and tolerance towards the UK. Quite
apart from how hard British PMs have had to fight for the "privilege"
(as you see it) of keeping to the rules that we had previously accepted
there is the small matter that concessions, once made, are almost
impossible to rescind. I was saying that these things should not be
privileges or concessions or acquiescences. They should be rights. Nor
should countries have to fight for the right to engage with the others
as suits them best. Nor, indeed, should countries by locked in to
schemes that are extremely hard to get out from. The whole EU model is
too rigid and inflexible and is causing anger across Europe. But it
doesn't need to be that way. The EU should think again, but is failing
to do so, it being wedded to the systems it has put in place already, no
matter how bad they are. I would hazard a guess that the EU almost NEVER
thinks of loosening its grip and passing controls back to the nation
states. All its thoughts are to go the other way and grab more power.
First, the EU "model" is not causing anger across Europe.
I disagree. Have you seen how many border fences have gone up
unilaterally in what is supposed to be a free-movement area? Are you
aware of the the rows that Brussels is having with Eastern states such
as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia? How do you think people feel in
once-thriving areas where their children have had to move to find work?
If you don't believe me, look at the rise of anti-EU feeling in Germany,
Italy and France.
Well, I dis say that some countries want different things and despite
your litany of woe above, no other EU nation wishes to leave the EU.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Sure, some
countries want different things, but are prepared to discuss them, not
just walk away. As for suggesting that our special treatment should be
accorded to us as of right, that's plain ridiculous.
Why should you call it "special treatment"? Why not just say that some
countries don't want to do everything the others do? The EU only tries
to coerce members into compliance because it wants everyone to follow
the same rules - whether they want to or not.
Countries are perfectly free to do what they wish to do, including
leaving. They just need to abide by the rules of the treaties they
signed when they joined, and subsequent treaties.

You can't just sign a contract then weasel out of it. You ~may~ be
able to *negotiate* your way out, however, which is what the UK
government is now doing, reluctantly for most MPs.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
We knew what we
were signing up to.
Agreed. We signed up to a common market, not a superstate.
Yes, and the timeline never stops evolving:

1951 European Coal and Steel Community
1954 European Defence Community
1957 EEC (Treaty of Rome)
1961 Britain attempts to join EEC
1968 The European Community customs union is completed
1973 Britain joins the EEC
1979 European Monetary System
1987 Single European Act (Treaty of Rome modified)
1991 Maastricht Treaty
1993 Treaty on European Union takes effect
1997 Amsterdam Treaty
2004 New constitution signed

We were trying since 1961 to become part of this expanding Union of
European nations and knew all along exactly what joining it meant.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Also, the EU has already said that there will have
to be reforms. It has introduced many reforms in the past, so that's
nothing new. Juncker back in March presented options for reforming the
bloc to shore up its unity and popular support. What Britain wants is
to have its cake and eat it, and the EU ain't having that. Quite
rightly.
Why should we or Denmark or Sweden or Romania or Croatia do what Mr
Juncker thinks is best?
He can only propose reforms. You seem to be saying that he orders
countries to do his bidding without any intervention by any of the
other bodies in the EU.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
But why should we have had to "secure opt outs"? Why should a country
not simply be able to join schemes if it wanted to? If the schemes were
good ones, wouldn't countries be queueing up to join them?
The rules. Read the Terms and Conditions we agreed to when we joined
or when new treaties came along later. We want special treatment? Then
we're going to have to negotiate.
The rules say that some changes can only be made with unanimity. What's
wrong with that?
Nothing, if that's what has been decided democratically. Point to
where it wasn't, if you can.
Post by James Harris
Incidentally, your Mr Juncker wants to move many more decisions to QMV
so that individual states can have more rule changes imposed on them
without their agreement.
And how successful has he been in achieving that?
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
I'm not sure where you get that from. I would be behind the UK paying
its membership fee up until when we leave but not much more than that.
The £50bn is not the membership fee. It is to settle payment
commitments for future projects that we agreed to.
I accept that we could continue to fund some projects. For example, if
there is a bridge in Bulgaria which is halfway across a valley we the
British taxpayer may well agree to fund it to completion. But I don't
see why we should fund projects the EU hasn't even started yet and which
we will not benefit from.
It makes no difference that projects have not been started *yet*. What
matters is what we agreed to participate in, even if the bridge is not
due for another ten years.
Post by James Harris
And don't you agree that the EU should start to adjust to a new, lower,
budget? It has to negotiate new spending from Jan 2021 anyway. But so
far it is trying to increase spending!
The EU costs us very little and gives us such a lot. Our £8bn net
contribution is a tiny slice ofn Britain's total GDP. It's peanuts,
relativelt speaking, compared to the other payments the treasury has
to make. It's even less than the amount we allocate to overseas aid!
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
I see no connection between my comment and your reply.
Well, you seemed to be saying that we can just make up our own rules
about paying the "divorce" bill.
OK. No, I was saying that the EU member states should be completely free
to join or stay away from (or even leave) EU schemes, as best suited
their own people. If the EU designed good schemes then nations would
want to sign up to them, wouldn't they! But as you know, the EU says
that one size fits all, and nations are expected to conform.
Any club, and the EU is no exception, expects its members to abide by
the rules and follow procedure. If any member wants special treatment,
that is fine as long as the correct procedures are followed.
I doubt there's any member which has stuck by the rules more than the
UK. In fact, the rules say that on 29 March 2019 the EU is set to lose
its power over the UK. There is no/nada/zero requirement for the UK as
the seceding state to make any more payments of any kind. Are you happy
with that? Or is it that you only like EU rules when they suit your
prior beliefs?
It is now accepted that the so-called "divorce" payment will be spread
over many years, perhaps as long as 40 years. But whatever it is, we
committed to sharing the costs of future projects and we cannot weasel
out of them.
That's nonsense. If you want to fund the EU far into the future why
don't you set up a standing order? We as a country are duty bound to pay
our dues, nothing more.
Okay, so nothing more than £50bn over 40 years it is!

MM
James Harris
2017-12-04 15:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:24:37 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:04:23 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:22:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:21:06 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
That's the point. When the others want to change the rules, why should
we agree? Think about it.
Which rules have been changed without our agreement?
That's a different question, isn't it, MM? First you claim we agreed to
abide by the rules at the time of entry but now you seem to accept that
the rules changed after we joined.
Not accepting, asking. You. You're the one who said " When the others
want to change the rules, why should we agree?"
Presumably, you based that question on some rule or other that you
believe was changed without our agreement. I was merely asking you
which rule that was.
Do you have the answer yet?
Your presumption that my point was based on a specific rule is
incorrect. As above, you asserted that the UK "securing opt outs" was an
indication of the EU's beneficence and tolerance towards the UK. Quite
apart from how hard British PMs have had to fight for the "privilege"
(as you see it) of keeping to the rules that we had previously accepted
there is the small matter that concessions, once made, are almost
impossible to rescind. I was saying that these things should not be
privileges or concessions or acquiescences. They should be rights. Nor
should countries have to fight for the right to engage with the others
as suits them best. Nor, indeed, should countries by locked in to
schemes that are extremely hard to get out from. The whole EU model is
too rigid and inflexible and is causing anger across Europe. But it
doesn't need to be that way. The EU should think again, but is failing
to do so, it being wedded to the systems it has put in place already, no
matter how bad they are. I would hazard a guess that the EU almost NEVER
thinks of loosening its grip and passing controls back to the nation
states. All its thoughts are to go the other way and grab more power.
First, the EU "model" is not causing anger across Europe.
I disagree. Have you seen how many border fences have gone up
unilaterally in what is supposed to be a free-movement area? Are you
aware of the the rows that Brussels is having with Eastern states such
as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia? How do you think people feel in
once-thriving areas where their children have had to move to find work?
If you don't believe me, look at the rise of anti-EU feeling in Germany,
Italy and France.
Well, I dis say that some countries want different things
They do.
Post by MM
and despite
your litany of woe above, no other EU nation wishes to leave the EU.
How do you know...?
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Sure, some
countries want different things, but are prepared to discuss them, not
just walk away. As for suggesting that our special treatment should be
accorded to us as of right, that's plain ridiculous.
Why should you call it "special treatment"? Why not just say that some
countries don't want to do everything the others do? The EU only tries
to coerce members into compliance because it wants everyone to follow
the same rules - whether they want to or not.
Countries are perfectly free to do what they wish to do, including
leaving. They just need to abide by the rules of the treaties they
signed when they joined, and subsequent treaties.
The "and subsequent treaties" bit you've just added is the important
bit. I was saying that countries should be able to pick and choose what
they want to get involved in. But the EU calls that cherry picking.
Cooperation is good. But the EU's attempts to strong-arm nations to all
fit the same model is the doorway through which good ideas go bad.
Post by MM
You can't just sign a contract then weasel out of it. You ~may~ be
able to *negotiate* your way out, however, which is what the UK
government is now doing, reluctantly for most MPs.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
We knew what we
were signing up to.
Agreed. We signed up to a common market, not a superstate.
1951 European Coal and Steel Community
1954 European Defence Community
1957 EEC (Treaty of Rome)
1961 Britain attempts to join EEC
1968 The European Community customs union is completed
1973 Britain joins the EEC
1979 European Monetary System
1987 Single European Act (Treaty of Rome modified)
1991 Maastricht Treaty
1993 Treaty on European Union takes effect
1997 Amsterdam Treaty
2004 New constitution signed
We were trying since 1961 to become part of this expanding Union of
European nations and knew all along exactly what joining it meant.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Also, the EU has already said that there will have
to be reforms. It has introduced many reforms in the past, so that's
nothing new. Juncker back in March presented options for reforming the
bloc to shore up its unity and popular support. What Britain wants is
to have its cake and eat it, and the EU ain't having that. Quite
rightly.
Why should we or Denmark or Sweden or Romania or Croatia do what Mr
Juncker thinks is best?
He can only propose reforms. You seem to be saying that he orders
countries to do his bidding without any intervention by any of the
other bodies in the EU.
No, I did not make that claim.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
And the question as asked is around your claim that the EU was
"tolerant" in allowing us to "secure" opt outs of some of those changes.
So I ask again, why should the UK have to secure opt outs for changes it
didn't like? Why could our government not just say No to any changes
which were not in our interests?
Because that was not what we signed up to when we joined. We agreed to
follow the correct procedures, which we did, and secured opt-outs to
which the EU agreed.
But why should we have had to "secure opt outs"? Why should a country
not simply be able to join schemes if it wanted to? If the schemes were
good ones, wouldn't countries be queueing up to join them?
The rules. Read the Terms and Conditions we agreed to when we joined
or when new treaties came along later. We want special treatment? Then
we're going to have to negotiate.
The rules say that some changes can only be made with unanimity. What's
wrong with that?
Nothing, if that's what has been decided democratically. Point to
where it wasn't, if you can.
Post by James Harris
Incidentally, your Mr Juncker wants to move many more decisions to QMV
so that individual states can have more rule changes imposed on them
without their agreement.
And how successful has he been in achieving that?
You'll have to check in a few years' time.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
It was rhetorical. The point being that the negotiations attempted to
force the UK to go in a harmful direction and that the opt outs and any
other "concessions" come at a price. They are not free choices but must
be paid for.
Unfortunately for the Brexit cause, however, one of the chief
Brexiters, Chris Grayling, has announced that the new "divorce"
payment could be as high as £50bn, and said "Paying Brexit bill is
Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
I don't know the detail of what Grayling said and he doesn't speak for
me. He is certainly not someone I would call "one of the chief
Brexiteers"! My view is that £50bn would be worth it if and only if we
were to get a good trade deal at the end of it. Don't forget that the EU
chomps through about £10bn of our money every year for as long as we
stay in so £50bn is money we would have lost over five years, anyway.
And the EU's membership fee is set to go up and up and up so the sooner
we exit the more we save.
Very interesting that you now accept we'll be paying around £50bn to
leave the EU, as if this was the plan all along when of course no
mention whatsoever was made of this by the Leave campaign teams.
I'm not sure where you get that from. I would be behind the UK paying
its membership fee up until when we leave but not much more than that.
The £50bn is not the membership fee. It is to settle payment
commitments for future projects that we agreed to.
I accept that we could continue to fund some projects. For example, if
there is a bridge in Bulgaria which is halfway across a valley we the
British taxpayer may well agree to fund it to completion. But I don't
see why we should fund projects the EU hasn't even started yet and which
we will not benefit from.
It makes no difference that projects have not been started *yet*. What
matters is what we agreed to participate in, even if the bridge is not
due for another ten years.
No, we most certainly should not. You are the one who is keen on
sticking to the letter of the law. We have no legal duty whatsoever to
keep funding the EU after we leave. Any we do choose to fund would be
goodwill payments.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
And don't you agree that the EU should start to adjust to a new, lower,
budget? It has to negotiate new spending from Jan 2021 anyway. But so
far it is trying to increase spending!
The EU costs us very little and gives us such a lot. Our £8bn net
contribution is a tiny slice ofn Britain's total GDP. It's peanuts,
relativelt speaking, compared to the other payments the treasury has
to make. It's even less than the amount we allocate to overseas aid!
We've discussed that before. Let's not go down that road again.
--
James Harris
Fredxx
2017-11-28 14:28:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
Which were article 50 and 2 years to leaving.

It's not so difficult unless you want to make it so.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
You mean they should be paying us?

The European way is simply what is his is his and what is hers is hers.

Why do you conveniently say this shouldn't be the case?
MM
2017-11-29 09:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:32:15 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
I completely agree. The EU has a political objective - plain and simple
- and that is why we should leave.
Didn't we secure an opt-out on Schengen? Euro? Driving on the right?
Speaking English? Surely the EU is very tolerant of individual
nations' needs and desires?
Why should the UK have to "secure" opt outs? Why not just say No?
Because we agreed to abide by the rules when we joined.
Which were article 50 and 2 years to leaving.
It's not so difficult unless you want to make it so.
It's not me who's making it difficult, it's the government. However,
that has all changed as of this morning, as the government has now
increased its proposal to £50bn. Chris Grayling, arch-Brexiter, said
"Paying Brexit bill is Britain's obligation to EU"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-bill-of-50bn-no-more-than-what-uk-owes-eu-says-grayling
Post by Fredxx
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Why
should a nation have to fight for the right to maintain the status quo
just because others want to change something, and what did the UK give
up in exchange for the opt outs it secured?
Surely you can find that out for yourself?
Post by James Harris
Nations should be free to pick and choose what they want to do. If the
EU cannot design schemes which nations want to join up with then it
should produce better designs.
Is this some kind if ruse you've come up with to avoid paying the
"divorce" bill?
You mean they should be paying us?
How did you derive that from what I said?
Post by Fredxx
The European way is simply what is his is his and what is hers is hers.
Why do you conveniently say this shouldn't be the case?
Where did I say that? When?

MM
MM
2017-11-27 11:15:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?

Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?

MM
pamela
2017-11-27 13:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-
deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its
project ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to
leave. The EU's priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
I find it strange to see the argument that if some organisation
fiercely protects its own members then that's grounds for
leaving!
Post by Yellow
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back?
Or France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-
faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Worse than Greece? Now that is bad. And it's set to get a lot
worse.

There were some hopeful projections which said Brexit might pay
for itself later this century. Even that optimistic forecast
looks unlikely now.
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels
will protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of
brinkmanship games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal -
and they might well be right - so they are pushing to see what
they can get. But they want a deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
MM
Theresa May is toast. It's only going to take one good crisis,
probably arising from the Brexit negotiations, and she will lose a
vote of confidence.

She will probably go before then.... the Conservative Party can be
brutally quick when it comes to removing its leader.
James Harris
2017-11-27 13:40:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Even you know that that's delusional. Greece has suffered terribly as a
result of membership not so much of the EU but of the euro.

Besides, you need to compare what our growth has been like with what it
could have been.

Germany does well out of the EU because Germany is a world leader in
manufacture of goods and the EU has a great single market in goods. By
contrast, the UK excels in services but the EU has never got round to
completing the single market in services. The EU is not a good place for
the UK to be.
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
Well, a /good/ deal would be better than no deal. But it's extremely
easy to design a deal which would be a lot worse.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-28 09:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:40:02 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Even you know that that's delusional. Greece has suffered terribly as a
result of membership not so much of the EU but of the euro.
Besides, you need to compare what our growth has been like with what it
could have been.
Germany does well out of the EU because Germany is a world leader in
manufacture of goods and the EU has a great single market in goods. By
contrast, the UK excels in services but the EU has never got round to
completing the single market in services. The EU is not a good place for
the UK to be.
But 44% of our trade is with the EU. Seems pretty good to me.
Certainly better than at the foot of a huge cliff.
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
Well, a /good/ deal would be better than no deal. But it's extremely
easy to design a deal which would be a lot worse.
So is the government actively designing a worse deal?

MM
James Harris
2017-11-28 14:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:40:02 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Even you know that that's delusional. Greece has suffered terribly as a
result of membership not so much of the EU but of the euro.
Besides, you need to compare what our growth has been like with what it
could have been.
Germany does well out of the EU because Germany is a world leader in
manufacture of goods and the EU has a great single market in goods. By
contrast, the UK excels in services but the EU has never got round to
completing the single market in services. The EU is not a good place for
the UK to be.
But 44% of our trade is with the EU. Seems pretty good to me.
Certainly better than at the foot of a huge cliff.
By taking to itself the right to make new trade deals, and by being poor
at it, the EU effectively impedes our trade with the rest of the world -
and yet despite the EU being on our doorstep and having supposedly a
wonderful market place our non-EU trade is still greater!

The EU economic model is broken and in slow decline. For instance, in
1980 its 12 members accounted for something like 24% of world trade.
Now, although it has 28 members its share of world trade has fallen to
something like 17%. Its approach to economics is a failure. It is like a
1960s tower block which seemed such a good idea or modern living at the
time but now people have seen how they work out in practice - and it's
not good. It does not live up to the hype.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
Well, a /good/ deal would be better than no deal. But it's extremely
easy to design a deal which would be a lot worse.
So is the government actively designing a worse deal?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. It seems to be unrelated to what
went before.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-29 11:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:33:22 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:40:02 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Even you know that that's delusional. Greece has suffered terribly as a
result of membership not so much of the EU but of the euro.
Besides, you need to compare what our growth has been like with what it
could have been.
Germany does well out of the EU because Germany is a world leader in
manufacture of goods and the EU has a great single market in goods. By
contrast, the UK excels in services but the EU has never got round to
completing the single market in services. The EU is not a good place for
the UK to be.
But 44% of our trade is with the EU. Seems pretty good to me.
Certainly better than at the foot of a huge cliff.
By taking to itself the right to make new trade deals, and by being poor
at it, the EU effectively impedes our trade with the rest of the world -
and yet despite the EU being on our doorstep and having supposedly a
wonderful market place our non-EU trade is still greater!
But Germany is far more succesful in exporting goods across the world
than Britain. Look at the figures:

UK $412.1 billion (2016 est.)
Germany: $1.283 trillion (2016 est.)

And yet Germany operates under exactly the same EU rules as we do.

So how is the EU impeding our trade with the rest of the world if
Germany seems to be able to export much, much more?

Do you mean that the EU has been punishing us for years in some way,
using some secret rule that nobody knows about?

And after we leave, we'll be on our own without ~any~ trade deals!
Whilst Germany and the other in the 27 will continue to thrive as they
are already doing, inside the Single Market.

So how are we going to make up the $412.1 billion in exports shown
above in 2020, 21, 22... etc?
Post by James Harris
The EU economic model is broken and in slow decline. For instance, in
1980 its 12 members accounted for something like 24% of world trade.
Now, although it has 28 members its share of world trade has fallen to
something like 17%. Its approach to economics is a failure. It is like a
1960s tower block which seemed such a good idea or modern living at >the
time but now people have seen how they work out in practice - and it's
not good. It does not live up to the hype.
You call it "slow decline", but isn't it really the case that *other*
non-EU countries have increased their economic performance over the
period? Now I find routinely that my fresh veg comes from Peru or
Guatemala, for example. I buy Suzuki cars made in India. You cannot
possibly compare 1980 to 2017, because the world has hugely changed in
so many ways in 37 years.
Post by James Harris
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
Well, a /good/ deal would be better than no deal. But it's extremely
easy to design a deal which would be a lot worse.
So is the government actively designing a worse deal?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. It seems to be unrelated to what
went before.
Pretend it's not related. What's your answer?

MM
James Harris
2017-11-29 20:20:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:33:22 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:40:02 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Even you know that that's delusional. Greece has suffered terribly as a
result of membership not so much of the EU but of the euro.
Besides, you need to compare what our growth has been like with what it
could have been.
Germany does well out of the EU because Germany is a world leader in
manufacture of goods and the EU has a great single market in goods. By
contrast, the UK excels in services but the EU has never got round to
completing the single market in services. The EU is not a good place for
the UK to be.
But 44% of our trade is with the EU. Seems pretty good to me.
Certainly better than at the foot of a huge cliff.
By taking to itself the right to make new trade deals, and by being poor
at it, the EU effectively impedes our trade with the rest of the world -
and yet despite the EU being on our doorstep and having supposedly a
wonderful market place our non-EU trade is still greater!
But Germany is far more succesful in exporting goods across the world
UK $412.1 billion (2016 est.)
Germany: $1.283 trillion (2016 est.)
And yet Germany operates under exactly the same EU rules as we do.
That's impressive. But don't forget that the euro is too low for Germany
and so helps its exports, and that the pound has long been too high for
Britain, harming British exports.

Also, compare services sales

UK: EUR 183 billion
Germany: EUR 126 billion

Why would you say that Germany so far behind in services?

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/International_trade_in_services
Post by MM
So how is the EU impeding our trade with the rest of the world if
Germany seems to be able to export much, much more?
Do you mean that the EU has been punishing us for years in some way,
using some secret rule that nobody knows about?
And after we leave, we'll be on our own without ~any~ trade deals!
Whilst Germany and the other in the 27 will continue to thrive as they
are already doing, inside the Single Market.
So how are we going to make up the $412.1 billion in exports shown
above in 2020, 21, 22... etc?
Over those years I don't expect Brexit to cause any significant decline
in our non-EU exports because we are likely to grandfather existing
deals and continue with other WTO trade. But our exports to the EU27 may
decrease, depending on what deal is done.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
The EU economic model is broken and in slow decline. For instance, in
1980 its 12 members accounted for something like 24% of world trade.
Now, although it has 28 members its share of world trade has fallen to
something like 17%. Its approach to economics is a failure. It is like a
1960s tower block which seemed such a good idea or modern living at >the
time but now people have seen how they work out in practice - and it's
not good. It does not live up to the hype.
You call it "slow decline", but isn't it really the case that *other*
non-EU countries have increased their economic performance over the
period? Now I find routinely that my fresh veg comes from Peru or
Guatemala, for example. I buy Suzuki cars made in India. You cannot
possibly compare 1980 to 2017, because the world has hugely changed in
so many ways in 37 years.
I would agree that other nations have stepped up, and that the advanced
economies such as in the EU had less room to develop. But I would also
suggest that the EU model of protectionism ultimately harms the
businesses it claims it is protecting because it shields them from
competition. Such shielding helps them in the short term but over time
they fail to sharpen up and become less able to compete, and they
therefore experience a slow decline. Further, other companies which buy
at EU prices have their input costs increased, and that in turn makes
them also less competitive. In the end, the protectionism cancer spreads
throughout the protected area. And that's what has been happening in the
EU. It is not a good model, as we can see from long-term economy figures.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
Well, a /good/ deal would be better than no deal. But it's extremely
easy to design a deal which would be a lot worse.
So is the government actively designing a worse deal?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. It seems to be unrelated to what
went before.
Pretend it's not related.
Easy to do!
Post by MM
What's your answer?
I don't believe that's their intention.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-11-30 09:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:20:50 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:33:22 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:40:02 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:39:38 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
That's not true. As a Brexiteer, I believe the EU will put its project
ahead of its prosperity. That's a very good reason to leave. The EU's
priorities have long held the UK back.
In what way?
Why, under the same conditions, has Germany not been held back? Or
France? Or even Greece?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-economy-now-growing-faster-than-the-uk-2017-9
Even you know that that's delusional. Greece has suffered terribly as a
result of membership not so much of the EU but of the euro.
Besides, you need to compare what our growth has been like with what it
could have been.
Germany does well out of the EU because Germany is a world leader in
manufacture of goods and the EU has a great single market in goods. By
contrast, the UK excels in services but the EU has never got round to
completing the single market in services. The EU is not a good place for
the UK to be.
But 44% of our trade is with the EU. Seems pretty good to me.
Certainly better than at the foot of a huge cliff.
By taking to itself the right to make new trade deals, and by being poor
at it, the EU effectively impedes our trade with the rest of the world -
and yet despite the EU being on our doorstep and having supposedly a
wonderful market place our non-EU trade is still greater!
But Germany is far more succesful in exporting goods across the world
UK $412.1 billion (2016 est.)
Germany: $1.283 trillion (2016 est.)
And yet Germany operates under exactly the same EU rules as we do.
That's impressive. But don't forget that the euro is too low for Germany
and so helps its exports, and that the pound has long been too high for
Britain, harming British exports.
Also, compare services sales
UK: EUR 183 billion
Germany: EUR 126 billion
Why would you say that Germany so far behind in services?
Germany is a country that *manufactures* things. We rely on 80% of our
economy being derived from (mainly) financial services, which are
fickle at best and very dependent upon world events. Germany has real
"stuff" to export to the world. We don't, because Maggie Thatcher
hated blue-collar workers and decimated British manufacturing
industry.
Post by James Harris
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/International_trade_in_services
Post by MM
So how is the EU impeding our trade with the rest of the world if
Germany seems to be able to export much, much more?
Do you mean that the EU has been punishing us for years in some way,
using some secret rule that nobody knows about?
And after we leave, we'll be on our own without ~any~ trade deals!
Whilst Germany and the other in the 27 will continue to thrive as they
are already doing, inside the Single Market.
So how are we going to make up the $412.1 billion in exports shown
above in 2020, 21, 22... etc?
Over those years I don't expect Brexit to cause any significant decline
in our non-EU exports because we are likely to grandfather existing
deals and continue with other WTO trade. But our exports to the EU27 may
decrease, depending on what deal is done.
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
The EU economic model is broken and in slow decline. For instance, in
1980 its 12 members accounted for something like 24% of world trade.
Now, although it has 28 members its share of world trade has fallen to
something like 17%. Its approach to economics is a failure. It is like a
1960s tower block which seemed such a good idea or modern living at >the
time but now people have seen how they work out in practice - and it's
not good. It does not live up to the hype.
You call it "slow decline", but isn't it really the case that *other*
non-EU countries have increased their economic performance over the
period? Now I find routinely that my fresh veg comes from Peru or
Guatemala, for example. I buy Suzuki cars made in India. You cannot
possibly compare 1980 to 2017, because the world has hugely changed in
so many ways in 37 years.
I would agree that other nations have stepped up, and that the advanced
economies such as in the EU had less room to develop. But I would also
suggest that the EU model of protectionism ultimately harms the
businesses it claims it is protecting because it shields them from
competition. Such shielding helps them in the short term but over time
they fail to sharpen up and become less able to compete, and they
therefore experience a slow decline. Further, other companies which buy
at EU prices have their input costs increased, and that in turn makes
them also less competitive. In the end, the protectionism cancer spreads
throughout the protected area. And that's what has been happening in the
EU. It is not a good model, as we can see from long-term economy figures.
But it is being widely reported now that the eurozone is enjoying a
significant boom. So I don't see where you expect gremlins to appear
from. You'd be much better off talking about the gremlins which are
already threatening the *British* economy, which, as you know, is now
in the doldrums compared to the the RoW.
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by Yellow
Post by James Harris
In reality, I think the EU wants a deal but one which it feels will
protect its future. But the EU is playing all kinds of brinkmanship
games. Its leaders are sure that May needs a deal - and they might well
be right - so they are pushing to see what they can get. But they want a
deal at the end of the day.
We all do. Or are you one of those who says no deal is better?
Well, a /good/ deal would be better than no deal. But it's extremely
easy to design a deal which would be a lot worse.
So is the government actively designing a worse deal?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. It seems to be unrelated to what
went before.
Pretend it's not related.
Easy to do!
Post by MM
What's your answer?
I don't believe that's their intention.
But they're still making a good fist of it!

Who said: "Lions led by donkeys"?

Never a truer word.

MM
James Harris
2017-11-30 16:36:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:20:50 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:33:22 +0000, James Harris
...
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
The EU economic model is broken and in slow decline. For instance, in
1980 its 12 members accounted for something like 24% of world trade.
Now, although it has 28 members its share of world trade has fallen to
something like 17%. Its approach to economics is a failure. It is like a
1960s tower block which seemed such a good idea or modern living at >the
time but now people have seen how they work out in practice - and it's
not good. It does not live up to the hype.
You call it "slow decline", but isn't it really the case that *other*
non-EU countries have increased their economic performance over the
period? Now I find routinely that my fresh veg comes from Peru or
Guatemala, for example. I buy Suzuki cars made in India. You cannot
possibly compare 1980 to 2017, because the world has hugely changed in
so many ways in 37 years.
I would agree that other nations have stepped up, and that the advanced
economies such as in the EU had less room to develop. But I would also
suggest that the EU model of protectionism ultimately harms the
businesses it claims it is protecting because it shields them from
competition. Such shielding helps them in the short term but over time
they fail to sharpen up and become less able to compete, and they
therefore experience a slow decline. Further, other companies which buy
at EU prices have their input costs increased, and that in turn makes
them also less competitive. In the end, the protectionism cancer spreads
throughout the protected area. And that's what has been happening in the
EU. It is not a good model, as we can see from long-term economy figures.
But it is being widely reported now that the eurozone is enjoying a
significant boom. So I don't see where you expect gremlins to appear
from. You'd be much better off talking about the gremlins which are
already threatening the *British* economy, which, as you know, is now
in the doldrums compared to the the RoW.
Just about all economies get better and worse figures over the short
term and I was quite clear about the EU's problems being _long-term_ ones.

For example, look at the last ten years. In that period the world's
economy has grown by 30% but the EU has grown less than 8%.

Or, over the last twenty years the world has grown 141% but the EU only
68%.

(Data from the world bank.)

They are dramatic differences, and they are not just stats. There are
reasons of /logic/ why the EU has been falling behind. While we are
shackled to the EU we are in the wrong place!
--
James Harris
MM
2017-12-02 16:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:36:53 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:20:50 +0000, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:33:22 +0000, James Harris
...
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by James Harris
The EU economic model is broken and in slow decline. For instance, in
1980 its 12 members accounted for something like 24% of world trade.
Now, although it has 28 members its share of world trade has fallen to
something like 17%. Its approach to economics is a failure. It is like a
1960s tower block which seemed such a good idea or modern living at >the
time but now people have seen how they work out in practice - and it's
not good. It does not live up to the hype.
You call it "slow decline", but isn't it really the case that *other*
non-EU countries have increased their economic performance over the
period? Now I find routinely that my fresh veg comes from Peru or
Guatemala, for example. I buy Suzuki cars made in India. You cannot
possibly compare 1980 to 2017, because the world has hugely changed in
so many ways in 37 years.
I would agree that other nations have stepped up, and that the advanced
economies such as in the EU had less room to develop. But I would also
suggest that the EU model of protectionism ultimately harms the
businesses it claims it is protecting because it shields them from
competition. Such shielding helps them in the short term but over time
they fail to sharpen up and become less able to compete, and they
therefore experience a slow decline. Further, other companies which buy
at EU prices have their input costs increased, and that in turn makes
them also less competitive. In the end, the protectionism cancer spreads
throughout the protected area. And that's what has been happening in the
EU. It is not a good model, as we can see from long-term economy figures.
But it is being widely reported now that the eurozone is enjoying a
significant boom. So I don't see where you expect gremlins to appear
from. You'd be much better off talking about the gremlins which are
already threatening the *British* economy, which, as you know, is now
in the doldrums compared to the the RoW.
Just about all economies get better and worse figures over the short
term and I was quite clear about the EU's problems being _long-term_ ones.
For example, look at the last ten years. In that period the world's
economy has grown by 30% but the EU has grown less than 8%.
Or, over the last twenty years the world has grown 141% but the EU only
68%.
(Data from the world bank.)
They are dramatic differences, and they are not just stats. There are
reasons of /logic/ why the EU has been falling behind. While we are
shackled to the EU we are in the wrong place!
It's not the case of the EU "falling behind", but much more the case
that other countries' economies are improving. It means we in Europe
have to work harder and more efficiently. As you know, this is not
typically what one finds in low-productivity Britain.

MM
pullgees
2017-11-26 18:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
pensive hamster
2017-11-26 18:55:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
pullgees
2017-11-26 19:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could google it and put lots of links for you but I can't be bothered, if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the point. Or maybe you are just lazy.
Pelican
2017-11-26 19:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years.
That looks very like the start of an evasive answer. Let us see.
Post by pullgees
I could google it and put lots of links for you but I can't be bothered, if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the point.
Yes, the answer is evasive, and there is no evidence provided to support
the claim. But, to be fair, the proposition being challenged was
rhetorical rather than factual.
Post by pullgees
Or maybe you are just lazy.
And there's the a bit of abuse being coupled with the evasive answer.
pullgees
2017-11-26 22:34:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pelican
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years.
That looks very like the start of an evasive answer. Let us see.
Post by pullgees
I could google it and put lots of links for you but I can't be bothered, if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the point.
Yes, the answer is evasive, and there is no evidence provided to support
the claim. But, to be fair, the proposition being challenged was
rhetorical rather than factual.
Post by pullgees
Or maybe you are just lazy.
And there's the a bit of abuse being coupled with the evasive answer.
Not evasive, I just really can't be bothered with such an inane question. And just think you will never know that the EU is creating a supranational state with the consequent subjugation of the nation state, if I don't post a link.
Pelican
2017-11-26 22:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by Pelican
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years.
That looks very like the start of an evasive answer. Let us see.
Post by pullgees
I could google it and put lots of links for you but I can't be bothered, if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the point.
Yes, the answer is evasive, and there is no evidence provided to support
the claim. But, to be fair, the proposition being challenged was
rhetorical rather than factual.
Post by pullgees
Or maybe you are just lazy.
And there's the a bit of abuse being coupled with the evasive answer.
Not evasive, I just really can't be bothered with such an inane question. And just think you will never know that the EU is creating a supranational state with the consequent subjugation of the nation state, if I don't post a link.
No doubt. Would you care to borrow Nelson's telescope?
pullgees
2017-11-27 08:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pelican
Post by pullgees
Post by Pelican
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years.
That looks very like the start of an evasive answer. Let us see.
Post by pullgees
I could google it and put lots of links for you but I can't be bothered, if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the point.
Yes, the answer is evasive, and there is no evidence provided to support
the claim. But, to be fair, the proposition being challenged was
rhetorical rather than factual.
Post by pullgees
Or maybe you are just lazy.
And there's the a bit of abuse being coupled with the evasive answer.
Not evasive, I just really can't be bothered with such an inane question. And just think you will never know that the EU is creating a supranational state with the consequent subjugation of the nation state, if I don't post a link.
No doubt. Would you care to borrow Nelson's telescope?
Ha! Methinks it's you whose blind but in both eyes.
pamela
2017-11-26 20:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 26 November 2017 18:55:19 UTC, pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:00:17 -0800 (PST), pullgees
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal
-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU
the preservation OF the EU is far more important than
money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any
cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I
could google it and put lots of links for you but I can't be
bothered, if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU
what's the point. Or maybe you are just lazy.
I Googled it but there's almost nothing there. Below is the search I
used. What other search terms would show the evidence you refer to?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?
q=EU+wants+complete+subjugation+of+the+nation+state+at+any+cost
pensive hamster
2017-11-26 22:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
Go on then. Two or three links would do ...
Post by pullgees
but I can't be bothered,
Oh I see. All mouth and no links ...
Post by pullgees
if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the
point. Or maybe you are just lazy.
Not being as lazy as you, I Googled "what evidence does
pullgees have that the EU wants complete subjugation of the
nation state at any cost?", and this is the first result:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/13/britain-doesnt-really-exist-exit--eu
13 January 2017
'How can Britain exit the EU? As a nation state Britain doesn’t
really exist

'We are told that this will be the year Brexit is set in motion.
That could be good or bad, depending on your perspective.
But in any event, we are overlooking a serious point. The
problem with “Brexit”, as shorthand for “British exit”, is that
there is no such place as Britain.

'Once upon a time there was a Roman province called Britannia,
but it did not include Ireland, or Scotland north of Hadrian’s Wall.
What does exist today is a state called the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not a nation state like
France or Denmark. It is a multinational state, like the former
Yugoslavia or the Austro-Hungarian empire.

'It is also a distinctly odd state. It contains four nations, one far
richer, more populous and more powerful than the other three.
England contains almost 84% of the UK population, Scotland
has just under 8.5%, Wales just under 5%, and Northern Ireland
just under 3%. The state populations of Germany and the United
States vary widely, but none towers over the rest to remotely this
extent. To judge by what they say and do, the London-centred
political and media elites are blind to the tangled history this
oddity reflects. As a result the union state is now heading for
break-up. ...'
-------------------------------

Well, that is an interesting prespective, but it doesn't really provide
any evidence that the EU wants complete subjugation of the
nation state at any cost. If anything, the article seems to suggest
it is Brexiteers who may break up Britain.
pullgees
2017-11-26 22:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by MM
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexit-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
What Brexiters simply fail to understand is that to the EU the
preservation OF the EU is far more important than money.
MM
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
Go on then. Two or three links would do ...
Post by pullgees
but I can't be bothered,
Oh I see. All mouth and no links ...
Post by pullgees
if you are so enamoured with the undemocratic EU what's the
point. Or maybe you are just lazy.
Not being as lazy as you, I Googled "what evidence does
pullgees have that the EU wants complete subjugation of the
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/13/britain-doesnt-really-exist-exit--eu
13 January 2017
'How can Britain exit the EU? As a nation state Britain doesn’t
really exist
'We are told that this will be the year Brexit is set in motion.
That could be good or bad, depending on your perspective.
But in any event, we are overlooking a serious point. The
problem with “Brexit”, as shorthand for “British exit”, is that
there is no such place as Britain.
'Once upon a time there was a Roman province called Britannia,
but it did not include Ireland, or Scotland north of Hadrian’s Wall.
What does exist today is a state called the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not a nation state like
France or Denmark. It is a multinational state, like the former
Yugoslavia or the Austro-Hungarian empire.
'It is also a distinctly odd state. It contains four nations, one far
richer, more populous and more powerful than the other three.
England contains almost 84% of the UK population, Scotland
has just under 8.5%, Wales just under 5%, and Northern Ireland
just under 3%. The state populations of Germany and the United
States vary widely, but none towers over the rest to remotely this
extent. To judge by what they say and do, the London-centred
political and media elites are blind to the tangled history this
oddity reflects. As a result the union state is now heading for
break-up. ...'
-------------------------------
Well, that is an interesting prespective, but it doesn't really provide
any evidence that the EU wants complete subjugation of the
nation state at any cost. If anything, the article seems to suggest
it is Brexiteers who may break up Britain.
So you found a link, but guess what it's the pro remain Guardina. Try harder next time.
pensive hamster
2017-11-26 22:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
You could, but you are not going to ...?


pullgees
2017-11-26 22:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
You could, but you are not going to ...?
http://youtu.be/4zLfCnGVeL4
Dead right I'm not going to answer the basic motive for the EU - created at its very inception for you. I'm not your teacher.
pensive hamster
2017-11-26 22:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
You could, but you are not going to ...?
http://youtu.be/4zLfCnGVeL4
Dead right I'm not going to answer the basic motive for the EU - created at its very inception for you. I'm not your teacher.
Here's something I found in the skool libry:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

'The available body of facts or information indicating whether
a belief or proposition is true or valid.'
pullgees
2017-11-27 08:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
You could, but you are not going to ...?
http://youtu.be/4zLfCnGVeL4
Dead right I'm not going to answer the basic motive for the EU - created at its very inception for you. I'm not your teacher.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
'The available body of facts or information indicating whether
a belief or proposition is true or valid.'
I glad you are doing your homework at last but please do not avoid challenging data.
pensive hamster
2017-11-29 11:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by pullgees
Post by pensive hamster
Post by pullgees
That's exactly whet we understand, knowing full well that the
EUSSR wants complete subjugation of the nation state at any cost.
What evidence do you have that the EU wants complete
subjugation of the nation state at any cost?
I'm not sure where you've been over the last forty years. I could
google it and put lots of links for you
You could, but you are not going to ...?
http://youtu.be/4zLfCnGVeL4
Dead right I'm not going to answer the basic motive for the EU - created at its very inception for you. I'm not your teacher.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
'The available body of facts or information indicating whether
a belief or proposition is true or valid.'
I glad you are doing your homework at last but please do not avoid challenging data.
You haven't provided any challenging data.

Anyway, here is some challenging data for you, challenging
your assertion that the EU "wants complete subjugation of the
nation state at any cost".

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

“Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political
union

'This expression is of long-standing origin.

'It is found in the Preamble to the 1957 treaty that set up
what became the EU. On at least six occasions the UK has
signed up to it (firstly in becoming a member, and then
agreeing to subsequent treaty changes).

'So for example, one of the main EU treaties currently refers to:

“the process of creating an ever closer union among the
peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly
as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

'Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the
peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not
contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with
a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a
European super-state. ...'
pamela
2017-11-26 10:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pullgees
But of course ideology comes before economics.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/23/eu-brink-no-deal-brexi
t-leaves-brussels-no-money-france-germany/
You use Breitbart as a source? Wow.
Loading...