Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi says EU leaders should remember European histor

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Nabavi says EU leaders should remember European history

Angela Merkel might not, just at the moment, be giving Brexit her full attention, given the difficulty of converting the results of Germany’s September election into a viable coalition government. Nonetheless, Brexit is a big problem for her and for the other EU27 leaders, and one which cannot simply be ignored. European, and especially German, history has important lessons which they should heed.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    edited November 2017
    First.

    Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.
  • Second! Like Remain, Corbyn & Yes...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,042
    edited November 2017
    this isn’t a zero-sum game; both sides will lose badly if it is mishandled.

    Tell that to the Remainers who only see wisdom and creativity on the EU side and folly and short-sightedness in the U.K...

    And excellent thread - thank you Mr Navabi.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Also look at the mood-music coming out from many in the UK towards the EU: it's hardy pleasant. So much hate is hardy conducive to getting a good deal.

    Boris, God bless him, is right in what he said back in September: we should pay what we owe; nothing more, noting less. Sadly, due to the unpreparedness of the people campaigning to leave, we have no idea what that would be.

    But more importantly than the money, we need to remain on good terms with the EU. It's important for both sides. And we, not they, are the ones making it hard to remain friends.
  • First.

    Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.

    I think the German politicians who told the Irish that they had the torture chamber ready for the British would view them as reparations.....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258

    this isn’t a zero-sum game; both sides will lose badly if it is mishandled.

    Tell that to the Remainers who only see wisdom and creativity on the EU side and folly and short-sightedness in the U.K...

    And excellent thread - thank you Mr Navabi.

    That's not what it's like though, is it? We voted to leave, and in so doing chose a path no-one in recent times had trodden on. That involves a certain amount of mature thinking to avoid tripping up. Instead, we've got clowns tripping up every step and madmen howling contradictory rubbish.

    The EU had also had problems in coping with this new reality. But we're the active party in this; we're the ones wanting to leave, to make the change. And we're utterly disorganised and chaotic.

    Some maturity is required on all sides. Sadly, there is none to be had on ours, and precious little on theirs. Brexit is consuming us, whilst it is just one of several big issues on their plate.

    I've been saying since well before the referendum that it isn't a zero-sum game, and that both sides can come out of this richer and more prosperous in the long-term.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258

    First.

    Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.

    I think the German politicians who told the Irish that they had the torture chamber ready for the British would view them as reparations.....
    Linky, please.

    Then again, also look at some of the stuff we've been saying about them. One of the things that needs to happen urgently is for both (or, more accurately all) sides to be a bit cool-headed in what they say. Develop a line and stick to it, and negotiate from there. I think some are attempting this on both sides, but idiots shouting in from the sidelines are not helping. And some of our idiots doing the shouting are in power ...
  • this isn’t a zero-sum game; both sides will lose badly if it is mishandled.

    Tell that to the Remainers who only see wisdom and creativity on the EU side and folly and short-sightedness in the U.K...

    And excellent thread - thank you Mr Navabi.

    Some maturity is required on all sides. Sadly, there is none to be had on ours.
    So you regard all of both of May’s Lancaster House and Florence speeches as immature?

    Which passages struck you as particularly immature?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    Agreeing a financial figure really shouldn’t be that difficult - especially given we accept a transition period where we continue to pay membership rates. I’m not really worried about a lack of agreement here.

    The Irish Border issue seems much more difficult.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    Thank you Richard for an interesting piece. As a leaver, I actually take a different view on this. I don't blame the EU and the 27 members playing hard ball. That's their prerogative.

    My problem is with our politicians. As far as I can tell, no one on either side of the debate has come to terms with the reality of the referendum result. I think the biggest criticism that can be levelled at the Leave campaign is that some suggested that doing a trade deal would be easy. Its one thing for voters to believe something like that when voting in a referendum. It's quite another for politicians to keep believing it once it becomes obvious that it's not the case.

    My biggest concern about voting to leave was how our politicians would react. Unfortunately, they've been pretty rubbish. So far. Yes, they were right to pursue a negotiation with a view to getting some sort of trade deal. But at the same time, they absolutely needed a Plan B. Unfortunately, whilst Remain politicians are very good at trotting out lines like "I accept the result and Brexit will happen" they have adapted to the new political reality. They continue to behave as though everything is in the government's gift when, of course, it isn't.

    We hear a lot about how this is the biggest thing that's happened in this country since WW2. Yet, our politicians have continued with business as normal, seeking only to gain political advantage. At some point, something will have to give.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.
  • Interesting take on the NI/Ireland question from an Irish perspective:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

    One part of it strikes me as particularly obtuse on the part of the EU:

    Irish sources closely involved are also incensed that David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, reacted to the Task Force paper by suggesting it undermined the constitution of the UK.

    "We never, ever brought into this discussion the constitutional issue," says one source. "That was brought in by David Davis. That’s not where we want to go. There are ways of touching upon this without touching on any constitutional issues.

    "It is possible to have a separate customs space within a state, also all island regulatory arrangements are possible too.


    No - a border in the Irish sea between parts of the UK and different regulations in one part of the UK (over which it has no say) is not a 'constitutional issue'.....
  • rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    Oh for goodness sake. Please pay attention. This analysis is absolute nonsense. Within the EU treaties there are no claims on assets of the EU and there is no ability to force member states to meet its liabilities. The EU is not a partnership. Legally it is absolutely clear that the only financial obligations which the UK subscribed to in the treaties was the Own Resources Decision, which expires on Brexit.

    Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.

    Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited November 2017
    A good article Richard. People on all sides need to start acting like adults here and accept that. 1. Brexit is happening. and 2. That we all need to trade with each other afterwards.

    Right now it feels like one of those divorces where the two sides are both happy to spend their entire wealth on lawyers, so long as the other side don’t get to see a penny.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    Oh for goodness sake. Please pay attention. This analysis is absolute nonsense. Within the EU treaties there are no claims on assets of the EU and there is no ability to force member states to meet its liabilities. The EU is not a partnership. Legally it is absolutely clear that the only financial obligations which the UK subscribed to in the treaties was the Own Resources Decision, which expires on Brexit.

    Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.

    Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
    This is the real problem I guess why we haven’t fixed a bill.
    Because some Brexiteers don’t think we should pay anything.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    Sandpit said:



    Right now it feels like one of those divorces where the two sides are both happy to spend their entire wealth on lawyers, so long as the other side don’t get to see a penny.

    It looks that way - but I suspect the reality is most of the Cabinet know we will have to pay a much lower sum than the EU are asking.

    The challenge is May has to sell that to a sceptical Tory party and a sceptical public to whom even £1bn seems a lot of money.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    Interesting take on the NI/Ireland question from an Irish perspective:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

    One part of it strikes me as particularly obtuse on the part of the EU:

    Irish sources closely involved are also incensed that David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, reacted to the Task Force paper by suggesting it undermined the constitution of the UK.

    "We never, ever brought into this discussion the constitutional issue," says one source. "That was brought in by David Davis. That’s not where we want to go. There are ways of touching upon this without touching on any constitutional issues.

    "It is possible to have a separate customs space within a state, also all island regulatory arrangements are possible too.


    No - a border in the Irish sea between parts of the UK and different regulations in one part of the UK (over which it has no say) is not a 'constitutional issue'.....

    That article reads as though there was a deliberate ambush from the EU side to push the border issue as a reason not to progress to the trade talks.

    We have said we will police it with technology, but they say simultaneously that there can’t be a ‘hard’ border yet there must be one if the U.K. leaves the customs union. As someone put it very well on here the other day, it’s Schrödinger’s Border.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    Oh for goodness sake. Please pay attention. This analysis is absolute nonsense. Within the EU treaties there are no claims on assets of the EU and there is no ability to force member states to meet its liabilities. The EU is not a partnership. Legally it is absolutely clear that the only financial obligations which the UK subscribed to in the treaties was the Own Resources Decision, which expires on Brexit.

    Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.

    Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
    This is the real problem I guess why we haven’t fixed a bill.
    Because some Brexiteers don’t think we should pay anything.
    But this is what I mean about our politicians not waking up to reality. We had stupid politicians in this country peddling this nonsense. This has nothing to do with what we ought to pay and everything to do with what we are prepared to pay to get around the table for trade talks. Simple as that.
  • rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    Oh for goodness sake. Please pay attention. This analysis is absolute nonsense. Within the EU treaties there are no claims on assets of the EU and there is no ability to force member states to meet its liabilities. The EU is not a partnership. Legally it is absolutely clear that the only financial obligations which the UK subscribed to in the treaties was the Own Resources Decision, which expires on Brexit.

    Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.

    Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
    This is the real problem I guess why we haven’t fixed a bill.
    Because some Brexiteers don’t think we should pay anything.
    That includes the House of Lords?

    However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    tlg86 said:



    But this is what I mean about our politicians not waking up to reality. We had stupid politicians in this country peddling this nonsense. This has nothing to do with what we ought to pay and everything to do with what we are prepared to pay to get around the table for trade talks. Simple as that.

    The likes of Bill Cash who think the EU should pay us to leave are unhelpful certainly.

    But I do think the leaving bill is separate to future trade arrangements which will take years to finalise.

    We should offer to pay our obligations- that’s what responsible countries do.

    Of course we will have trade talks with the EU - they don’t want to stop trading with us.

    But the efforts to link these issues I think have been unhelpful and delayed things.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:



    Right now it feels like one of those divorces where the two sides are both happy to spend their entire wealth on lawyers, so long as the other side don’t get to see a penny.

    It looks that way - but I suspect the reality is most of the Cabinet know we will have to pay a much lower sum than the EU are asking.

    The challenge is May has to sell that to a sceptical Tory party and a sceptical public to whom even £1bn seems a lot of money.
    I don’t think there’s too much of a problem with the concept of settling up our bill before we leave the club. We’ve offered transition payments for two years and will agree to pay the pensions of Peter Mandleson and Cathy Ashton.

    On the other side the EU appear to have presented a bill for £60bn, then changed it to €100bn, haven’t explained the basis of it and don’t understand that, having pissed off their second biggest contributor, they’ll have to cut the cloth of their own budget according to their future means.

    They’re like the divorcing wife now living on benefits, eagerly eyeing up next year’s Disneyland brochure in the expectation that ex-hubby will pay for it.
  • @Richard_Nabavi I'm astonished to see this clap trap over your name. Over all the years I've read this site you are almost certainly the single best poster PB has had. Posting such obvious and jingoistic nonsense in a thread much more as a thread header is baffling and unworthy of you.

    By all accounts the actual divorce bill , the UK's share of accrued liabilities , is really quite small. The reason we are talking anything like €60bn is because as well leaving we are instantly wanting to establish a ' deep and special ' relationship which delivers a new security Treaty and mimics many of the aspects of membership. On top of this we're asking for a 27 month ' status quo ' transition where we'll enjoy almost full benefits of membership.Put simply the ' Divorce Bill ' isn't a bill for Divorce. It's a bill for Divorce, then 27 months of cohabitation then a new agreement where we continue to be f*ck buddies. And a divorce which we triggered with no plan which will in the short term leave us living in the Garage if our request for the Divorce/Cohabitation/F*ck Buddy agreement isn't met.

    Put simply we've put ourselves in a weak bargaining position then decided to seek a Grand Bargain. In response our bemused neighbours are quite reasonably trying to screw a few extra billion out of us for the hassle, the laughs and because they can. And suppose they succeed and get say £15bn extra out of us over a multi year agreement ? It's a rounding error is UK government expenditure generally much less state waste, error and bad policy.

    And you compare the trifling and minor cost of our incompetence to the Treaty of Versailles ?

    Did you actually write this article Richard or was your account hacked ?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    Oh for goodness sake. Please pay attention. This analysis is absolute nonsense. Within the EU treaties there are no claims on assets of the EU and there is no ability to force member states to meet its liabilities. The EU is not a partnership. Legally it is absolutely clear that the only financial obligations which the UK subscribed to in the treaties was the Own Resources Decision, which expires on Brexit.

    Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.

    Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
    This is the real problem I guess why we haven’t fixed a bill.
    Because some Brexiteers don’t think we should pay anything.
    That includes the House of Lords?

    However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/125.pdf
    Should =/= legally allowed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    tlg86 said:



    But this is what I mean about our politicians not waking up to reality. We had stupid politicians in this country peddling this nonsense. This has nothing to do with what we ought to pay and everything to do with what we are prepared to pay to get around the table for trade talks. Simple as that.

    The likes of Bill Cash who think the EU should pay us to leave are unhelpful certainly.

    But I do think the leaving bill is separate to future trade arrangements which will take years to finalise.

    We should offer to pay our obligations- that’s what responsible countries do.

    Of course we will have trade talks with the EU - they don’t want to stop trading with us.

    But the efforts to link these issues I think have been unhelpful and delayed things.
    What’s the basis for the bill if it’s unrelated to trade though? If they’ve no intention of talking about a trade deal then we leave the club in March 2019 and agree to go our separate ways.

    Cash is right that if you look at the numbers on a trade deal in goods but not in services (the “Canada” deal) the EU should inded be paying us for their £120bn trade surplus.

    We’ve already offered something of a transition, but they keep saying it isn’t enough while being unable to justify their own figure.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Also look at the mood-music coming out from many in the UK towards the EU: it's hardy pleasant. So much hate is hardy conducive to getting a good deal.

    Boris, God bless him, is right in what he said back in September: we should pay what we owe; nothing more, noting less. Sadly, due to the unpreparedness of the people campaigning to leave, we have no idea what that would be.

    But more importantly than the money, we need to remain on good terms with the EU. It's important for both sides. And we, not they, are the ones making it hard to remain friends.

    Actually it's absolutely clear what we owe:

    - Membership dues until our membership expires
    - Small residual liabilities related to pensions etc.

    The issue is that the EU is claiming unfunded promises made for some time in the future without proving evidence to support their claim.

    Money for unspecified damages is "reparations" unless you can think of a better term?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    tlg86 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Daniel Gros - centre for European Policy Studies writes in the FT.

    “As of end 2016, the EU had assets of about €160bn, but liabilities of about €232bn, and thus a negative net asset position of €72bn. When the UK leaves the club, it should pay for its part of the accumulated net liability. Given that the share of the UK in the budget of the EU is 14 per cent, the “divorce”, or rather disengagement, payment would amount to 14 per cent of €72bn: about €10bn,”

    Seems simple. Add on £10bn a year for the transition period and job done.

    Whatever relationship we have afterwards is completely separate and should be considered separately.

    Oh for goodness sake. Please pay attention. This analysis is absolute nonsense. Within the EU treaties there are no claims on assets of the EU and there is no ability to force member states to meet its liabilities. The EU is not a partnership. Legally it is absolutely clear that the only financial obligations which the UK subscribed to in the treaties was the Own Resources Decision, which expires on Brexit.

    Wheeling out this dead argument just obscures the reality, which is that the Brexit Bill is a commercial demand, not a legal one.

    Has anyone seen a legal analysis of the claim from the EU itself? No? That is because there isn't one.
    This is the real problem I guess why we haven’t fixed a bill.
    Because some Brexiteers don’t think we should pay anything.
    But this is what I mean about our politicians not waking up to reality. We had stupid politicians in this country peddling this nonsense. This has nothing to do with what we ought to pay and everything to do with what we are prepared to pay to get around the table for trade talks. Simple as that.
    It's absolutely the problem.

    The UK will pay for a trade deal.

    We won't pay "to get round the table" for trade talks.
  • The Mail say they have the Gove/Johnson memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html

    Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....
  • My WW1 history is a bit rusty but from this I'm guessing the Versailles agreement was mainly paying for things like Germany's existing pension commitments. Have I got this right?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    The Mail say they have the Gove/Johnson memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html

    Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....

    Didn’t see that before. Very good letter.
  • My WW1 history is a bit rusty but from this I'm guessing the Versailles agreement was mainly paying for things like Germany's existing pension commitments. Have I got this right?

    To 700,000 French war widows?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,358
    An interesting header. But instead of seeing it from the point of view of an affronted UK you could break the British habit of a lifetime and try to see it from THEIR point of view.......

    Though we see ourselves variously as the plucky little country who saved the world from savages to the centre and an empire so great the sun never set on us their view of our history is more recent. They see a country whose arrogance and uncooperativeness has made their lives hell for the last 42 years.......

    A country now so gross 52% chose to embrace the vision of Nigel Farage. The same Nigel Farage who had shown his contempt for the EU in his tirade to the European President " Who are you? You have the appearance of a damp rag and the charisma of a second rate bank clerk......".

    To the Europeans we are all Faragists now. Our history might give 'The Sun' a permanent erection but it counts for diddly squat with our ex EU partners. And it's not as though our grossness ended with farage. Just when it seemed we couldn't wave them a bigger V sign we appointed Boris Johnson to Foreign Secretary.

    Sorry but it's time to pay up and slink out before our reputation is trashed any further.

  • TAX cuts for millionaires have cost the Treasury more than £8.6billion, a study reveals.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4945696/millionaires-cost-treasury-8-6-billion/

    And who was 'the study' by?

    Doesn't say......but it does extensively quote Union leaders.....
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970

    First.

    Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.

    I think the German politicians who told the Irish that they had the torture chamber ready for the British would view them as reparations.....
    I missed that. Which German politicians?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,358
    edited November 2017

    The Mail say they have the Gove/Johnson memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html

    Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....

    That is hilarious! Especially the large headline "FOR YOUR AND GAVIN BARWELL'S EYES ONLY" (and two million Mail readers obviously)

    Until you read chilling stuff like that you forget that Gove was the original British neo-con in the mould of Paul Wolfowitz,

    I can easily see why Davis might resign over it!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    TAX cuts for millionaires have cost the Treasury more than £8.6billion, a study reveals.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4945696/millionaires-cost-treasury-8-6-billion/

    And who was 'the study' by?

    Doesn't say......but it does extensively quote Union leaders.....

    It implies it's by Unison.

    But would be interested to see the methodology. I'm guessing it is not a dynamic analysis.
  • First.

    Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.

    I think the German politicians who told the Irish that they had the torture chamber ready for the British would view them as reparations.....
    I missed that. Which German politicians?
    I read it last week it was remarked reportedly made to the Irish Foreign minister after meeting German Parliamentarians.....JJ asked for a linky but so far one has eluded me.....
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,538

    First.

    Not sure it's useful referring to them as 'reparations'. Money will be due, and it will be our duty to pay money for ongoing obligations that we subscribed to, or pay to get out.

    I think the German politicians who told the Irish that they had the torture chamber ready for the British would view them as reparations.....
    I missed that. Which German politicians?
    I read it last week it was remarked reportedly made to the Irish Foreign minister after meeting German Parliamentarians.....JJ asked for a linky but so far one has eluded me.....
    Right at the end of this, says one MEP said it https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/noel-whelan-anger-over-brexit-will-not-get-ireland-anywhere-1.3030803?mode=amp
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,358
    "A FORMER Scottish Labour MP has been accused of sexually assaulting a female councillor at a social event while his wife sat across the table.

    Carol Hughes, who stood down as a councillor in 2007, said the senior party figure put his hand up her dress and caressed her thigh for five minutes at a dinner"

    ....After four and a half minutes she must have realised the hors d'oeuvres had arrived and she was hungry
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    Think about this. The EU have unilaterally decided that we should pay a large sum of money to move onto trade talks. Even if these trade talks are not productive.

    This is separate from any residual bills already agreed. Blackmail is the correct word.

    I wish those advocating this the best of luck in selling that to the British Public. Especially if the trade talks are totally unproductive ... "No problem, folks, there's never any guarantee in these sort of talks. Just put that 100 billion or whatever down to loose cash. After all, it only amounts to over £2,000 flushed down the toilet for every one currently working."

    Yes, that will go well.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970
    CD13 said:

    Think about this. The EU have unilaterally decided that we should pay a large sum of money to move onto trade talks. Even if these trade talks are not productive.

    This is separate from any residual bills already agreed. Blackmail is the correct word.

    I wish those advocating this the best of luck in selling that to the British Public. Especially if the trade talks are totally unproductive ... "No problem, folks, there's never any guarantee in these sort of talks. Just put that 100 billion or whatever down to loose cash. After all, it only amounts to over £2,000 flushed down the toilet for every one currently working."

    Yes, that will go well.

    Who is advocating paying it?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited November 2017

    TAX cuts for millionaires have cost the Treasury more than £8.6billion, a study reveals.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4945696/millionaires-cost-treasury-8-6-billion/

    And who was 'the study' by?

    Doesn't say......but it does extensively quote Union leaders.....

    That’s hillarious, and based almost entirely on the reduction of the 50p rate that Brown introduced six weeks before he left office in 2010. Since which time income tax receipts have gone up considerably and the top decile and percentile are paying a higher proportion of income taxes than ever before.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    edited November 2017
    Mr Recidivist,

    "Who is advocating paying it?"

    Mr Roger for one. And there are several who want us to pay whatever it is without a guarantee.

    It cannot be sold to the electorate, not to any with functioning brain cells, but I'm no expert on politics.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975

    @Richard_Nabavi I'm astonished to see this clap trap over your name. Over all the years I've read this site you are almost certainly the single best poster PB has had. Posting such obvious and jingoistic nonsense in a thread much more as a thread header is baffling and unworthy of you.

    By all accounts the actual divorce bill , the UK's share of accrued liabilities , is really quite small. The reason we are talking anything like €60bn is because as well leaving we are instantly wanting to establish a ' deep and special ' relationship which delivers a new security Treaty and mimics many of the aspects of membership. On top of this we're asking for a 27 month ' status quo ' transition where we'll enjoy almost full benefits of membership.Put simply the ' Divorce Bill ' isn't a bill for Divorce. It's a bill for Divorce, then 27 months of cohabitation then a new agreement where we continue to be f*ck buddies. And a divorce which we triggered with no plan which will in the short term leave us living in the Garage if our request for the Divorce/Cohabitation/F*ck Buddy agreement isn't met.

    Put simply we've put ourselves in a weak bargaining position then decided to seek a Grand Bargain. In response our bemused neighbours are quite reasonably trying to screw a few extra billion out of us for the hassle, the laughs and because they can. And suppose they succeed and get say £15bn extra out of us over a multi year agreement ? It's a rounding error is UK government expenditure generally much less state waste, error and bad policy.

    And you compare the trifling and minor cost of our incompetence to the Treaty of Versailles ?

    Did you actually write this article Richard or was your account hacked ?

    +1
  • Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Charles said:

    TAX cuts for millionaires have cost the Treasury more than £8.6billion, a study reveals.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4945696/millionaires-cost-treasury-8-6-billion/

    And who was 'the study' by?

    Doesn't say......but it does extensively quote Union leaders.....

    It implies it's by Unison.

    But would be interested to see the methodology. I'm guessing it is not a dynamic analysis.
    Do you think Unison understand dynamic analysis? In their mind if you double the tax rate from 45% to 90% you double the receipts from the evil filthy rich.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    In other news, Kezia seems to have come down with Opik Syndrome...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    The Mail say they have the Gove/Johnson memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html

    Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....

    Good moaning! I brung news of the fallen letter with the big boobies...

    We are past the halfway point inbetween the referendum date and Brexit date, and still no progress on the three issues that we agreed needed to be resolved before trade talks started. The three stooges of Brexit really have taken incompetence to a new level.



  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970
    CD13 said:

    Mr Recidivist,

    "Who is advocating paying it?"

    Mr Roger for one. And there are several who want us to pay whatever it is without a guarantee.

    It cannot be sold to the electorate, not to any with functioning brain cells, but I'm no expert on politics.

    I'd have thought this was just about the only politically neutral but if the whole debate. Any government will try and minimise the payment. And remainers will regard it as one more example of the damage leaving the EU is causing, while leavers will believe we are being hard done by.

  • Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    TAX cuts for millionaires have cost the Treasury more than £8.6billion, a study reveals.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4945696/millionaires-cost-treasury-8-6-billion/

    And who was 'the study' by?

    Doesn't say......but it does extensively quote Union leaders.....

    It implies it's by Unison.

    But would be interested to see the methodology. I'm guessing it is not a dynamic analysis.
    Do you think Unison understand dynamic analysis? In their mind if you double the tax rate from 45% to 90% you double the receipts from the evil filthy rich.
    Unison absolutely understand dynamic analysis.

    It's why they insist on not using it in their submissions to the government.
  • Dr. Foxinsox, excitingly, a probable driver for next year is called Leclerc.

    I only wish we had a Crabtree driving.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    The Mail say they have the Gove/Johnson memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html

    Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....

    Good moaning! I brung news of the fallen letter with the big boobies...

    We are past the halfway point inbetween the referendum date and Brexit date, and still no progress on the three issues that we agreed needed to be resolved before trade talks started. The three stooges of Brexit really have taken incompetence to a new level.



    The EU so far have shown no willingness to respond to proposed compromises.

    The fault is not entirely on one side.
  • @Richard_Nabavi I'm astonished to see this clap trap over your name. Over all the years I've read this site you are almost certainly the single best poster PB has had. Posting such obvious and jingoistic nonsense in a thread much more as a thread header is baffling and unworthy of you.

    By all accounts the actual divorce bill , the UK's share of accrued liabilities , is really quite small. The reason we are talking anything like €60bn is because as well leaving we are instantly wanting to establish a ' deep and special ' relationship which delivers a new security Treaty and mimics many of the aspects of membership. On top of this we're asking for a 27 month ' status quo ' transition where we'll enjoy almost full benefits of membership.Put simply the ' Divorce Bill ' isn't a bill for Divorce. It's a bill for Divorce, then 27 months of cohabitation then a new agreement where we continue to be f*ck buddies. And a divorce which we triggered with no plan which will in the short term leave us living in the Garage if our request for the Divorce/Cohabitation/F*ck Buddy agreement isn't met.

    Put simply we've put ourselves in a weak bargaining position then decided to seek a Grand Bargain. In response our bemused neighbours are quite reasonably trying to screw a few extra billion out of us for the hassle, the laughs and because they can. And suppose they succeed and get say £15bn extra out of us over a multi year agreement ? It's a rounding error is UK government expenditure generally much less state waste, error and bad policy.

    And you compare the trifling and minor cost of our incompetence to the Treaty of Versailles ?

    Did you actually write this article Richard or was your account hacked ?

    Absolute bollocks.

    Being able to fly planes in and out of your own country is not a "special relationship". And yes the EU are threatening to prevent this if we don't pay up to their demands.
  • @Richard_Nabavi I'm astonished to see this clap trap over your name. Over all the years I've read this site you are almost certainly the single best poster PB has had. Posting such obvious and jingoistic nonsense in a thread much more as a thread header is baffling and unworthy of you.

    By all accounts the actual divorce bill , the UK's share of accrued liabilities , is really quite small. The reason we are talking anything like €60bn is because as well leaving we are instantly wanting to establish a ' deep and special ' relationship which delivers a new security Treaty and mimics many of the aspects of membership. On top of this we're asking for a 27 month ' status quo ' transition where we'll enjoy almost full benefits of membership.Put simply the ' Divorce Bill ' isn't a bill for Divorce. It's a bill for Divorce, then 27 months of cohabitation then a new agreement where we continue to be f*ck buddies. And a divorce which we triggered with no plan which will in the short term leave us living in the Garage if our request for the Divorce/Cohabitation/F*ck Buddy agreement isn't met.

    Put simply we've put ourselves in a weak bargaining position then decided to seek a Grand Bargain. In response our bemused neighbours are quite reasonably trying to screw a few extra billion out of us for the hassle, the laughs and because they can. And suppose they succeed and get say £15bn extra out of us over a multi year agreement ? It's a rounding error is UK government expenditure generally much less state waste, error and bad policy.

    And you compare the trifling and minor cost of our incompetence to the Treaty of Versailles ?

    Did you actually write this article Richard or was your account hacked ?

    The Versailles reparations (and these aren't reparations as @EdmundinTokyo laconically notes) weren't particularly onerous. That didn't stop them poisoning relations.

    Neither side should get hung up on money. In practice both sides will. The public will rightly see it as setting the tone of the fairness of the settlement. @RichardNabavi's point has even more force there: what kind of relationship with its neighbour does the EU want?
  • If this is true, good news from Spider:
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    I can see the leaver argument if we ever had a second referendum. Do you want to join a club that will actively punish you if you want to leave? You will be forced to stay forever, no matter how we decide to change the rules.

    £60 billion may be small change to some but it's the principle. You're not just buying a pig in a poke, you're only buying the poke and there may well be nothing in it.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    The Mail say they have the Gove/Johnson memo:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5096569/David-Davis-brink-resigning.html

    Don't see why Davis would resign over it - its more about 'getting Britain ready'.....

    Good moaning! I brung news of the fallen letter with the big boobies...

    We are past the halfway point inbetween the referendum date and Brexit date, and still no progress on the three issues that we agreed needed to be resolved before trade talks started. The three stooges of Brexit really have taken incompetence to a new level.



    The EU so far have shown no willingness to respond to proposed compromises.

    The fault is not entirely on one side.
    The Tories agreed to the three areas for initial talks and scheduling.

    I have said all along that No Deal is the most likely outcome as it is the default. It would be a good idea to prepare for it. Indeed Gove's letter seems to indicate that the penny has finally dropped...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    If this is true, good news from Spider:

    A sensible move.

    Amphibious Marine capability will be very handy for raiding the continent.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    Dr Fox,

    I also believe that No Deal is likely. The EU are also constrained. They cannot see us get a good deal without risking more walk-outs. That's why blaming the UK side for the breakdown is illogical. I'm sure a trade talks would start tomorrow if we offered an eye-wateringly large sum to begin with. Even then, they'd be reluctant to concede anything.

    What do the EU want?

    Firstly to discourage others. If they receive a king's ransom to begin talks, they will hold out for a massively advantageous result. If that ends in us crawling back to beg forgiveness, even better.

    Blaming UK negotiators and claiming they (whoever they are) could do better is a little optimistic, surely?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
  • Mr. CD13, if they believe that, they're fools.

    Most EU countries are chained to the single currency. They're mostly a lot smaller than us too, and would have greater difficulty weathering economic turbulence.

    Mr. Mark, a nice idea, but the current political leaders have neither the gumption nor the wits to make it work. Maybe down the line.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    If this is true, good news from Spider:

    A sensible move.

    Amphibious Marine capability will be very handy for raiding the continent.
    Next: the Channel Trebuchet Regiment needs to be taken out of mothballs....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    CD13 said:

    Dr Fox,

    I also believe that No Deal is likely. The EU are also constrained. They cannot see us get a good deal without risking more walk-outs. That's why blaming the UK side for the breakdown is illogical. I'm sure a trade talks would start tomorrow if we offered an eye-wateringly large sum to begin with. Even then, they'd be reluctant to concede anything.

    What do the EU want?

    Firstly to discourage others. If they receive a king's ransom to begin talks, they will hold out for a massively advantageous result. If that ends in us crawling back to beg forgiveness, even better.

    Blaming UK negotiators and claiming they (whoever they are) could do better is a little optimistic, surely?

    The EU simply sees itself as a rules based organisation, and abiding by rules and agreed procedures is their core goal.

    The reason that the negotiations are going nowhere is that mutual incomprehension is the order of the day, as David Davis's speech last week showed:

    https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/17/putting-politics-above-prosperity-brexiteers-germany-eu
  • Mr. Mark, once again, the Morris Dancer manifesto proved to be years ahead of its time!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Yes, the Frogs and Huns will quiver at the prospect of the British Empire reformed.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Mr. CD13, if they believe that, they're fools.

    An organisation that gave us Herman van Rompuy, Jean Claude Juncker and an illegal ban on our beef for which we have never received an apology much less compensation is made up of fools?

    You amaze me, Mr Dancer.

    (Inserts obligatory reminder that I still despite this voted Remain.)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
  • Mr. Jonathan, ha.

    Nostalgia is the wet dream of EU-philes who think they're recreating the Roman Empire and Pax Romana, forgetting that the Empire came at the point of the sword. (It also had minimal bureaucracy and didn't care much about regional differences provided you paid the low tax rates).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Yes, the Frogs and Huns will quiver at the prospect of the British Empire reformed.

    The Goths and the Toads may be unhappy as well.

    But it's the rats we need to be careful of :smile:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Yes, the Frogs and Huns will quiver at the prospect of the British Empire reformed.

    They should!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077
    Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
    Nostalgic? Nah - just forward thinking. Nostalgic will be trying to form a super-state from disparate peoples....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
    Indeed!

    Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.

    Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
    Nostalgic? Nah - just forward thinking. Nostalgic will be trying to form a super-state from disparate peoples....
    What, like forming a nation from celts, saxons and vikings?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
    Indeed!

    Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.

    Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
    Steel? Pah! We are looking at making graphene the core of the Welsh economy....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The EU should be very careful how nice they play with the UK. They might think they have the whip hand now. But in five years time, they could find the UK spearheading a new movement - with no pretensions to be anything other than a trading bloc. No giant bureaucracy, no army, no constitution that binds all its citizens - in short, not a super state. Just a trading force that seeks to encourage economic advantage over those who are outside the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
    Nostalgic? Nah - just forward thinking. Nostalgic will be trying to form a super-state from disparate peoples....
    What, like forming a nation from celts, saxons and vikings?
    I said super-state. Which you seem to have ignored to make a cheap point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    Goodness me everyone is bad-tempered this morning.

    I shall go and do some practice. The final hymn is Love Divine and to achieve a proper climax I'm going to need some work on the eight foot horn to achieve full swell.

    I do hope everyone is feeling more amiable by the time I return.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.

    JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    Hammond to announce an increase in nurses pay and measures on housebuilding in the Budget
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/18/philip-hammond-announce-pay-boost-nurses-budget-amid-pressure/
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970

    Mr. Jonathan, ha.

    Nostalgia is the wet dream of EU-philes who think they're recreating the Roman Empire and Pax Romana, forgetting that the Empire came at the point of the sword. (It also had minimal bureaucracy and didn't care much about regional differences provided you paid the low tax rates).

    Maybe I'm odd, but the idea of recreating the Roman Empire has never really crossed my mind. Nor the British Empire come to that. In fact I haven't even considered a relatively easy project like rebuilding the Hanseatic League. I just vote for what seems like the best available idea at the time.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    Goodness me everyone is bad-tempered this morning.

    I shall go and do some practice. The final hymn is Love Divine and to achieve a proper climax I'm going to need some work on the eight foot horn to achieve full swell.

    I do hope everyone is feeling more amiable by the time I return.

    Be careful there is a thief about :)

    Time for me to be off too.

  • Dr. Foxinsox, you're aware that was done by invasions and warfare, right?

    Mr. Recidivist, I was thinking more of eurocrats in Brussels than the vast majority of Remain voters. But there is a drive by some influential people across the continent to try and make the EU into a new Rome.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077
    Jonathan said:

    No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.

    JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.

    You Remainers just have no imagination....

    Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970

    Dr. Foxinsox, you're aware that was done by invasions and warfare, right?

    Mr. Recidivist, I was thinking more of eurocrats in Brussels than the vast majority of Remain voters. But there is a drive by some influential people across the continent to try and make the EU into a new Rome.

    Which Eurocrats?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    Of course the reparations demanded by Napoleon led to Russia's revenge in the Franco Prussian war as the article points out and the Treaty of Versailles to Germany dominating Europe under a brutal dictator and one of the most bloody wars in human history so we must hope history is not repeated.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    Interestingly Labourhame - edited by Duncan Hothersall - has fallen silent. Corbynising SLAB is going to be more challenging than many folks think - internal SLAB saboteurs are everywhere.

    http://labourhame.com
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    HYUFD said:

    Hammond to announce an increase in nurses pay and measures on housebuilding in the Budget
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/18/philip-hammond-announce-pay-boost-nurses-budget-amid-pressure/

    It would be quicker for the Conservatives to identify which bits of Labour's manifesto they aren't planning on implementing! ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited November 2017
    McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    edited November 2017

    Jonathan said:

    No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.

    JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.

    You Remainers just have no imagination....

    Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.
    Remainers imagination currently focused on undoing damage. Suspect that won't change. Nor why should it? They're totally within their rights to convince people to stay or rejoin.
  • This is not a UK problem. It is a Conservative party problem. The only reason the government is holding out is because paying up would tear the Tories to pieces. It is classic party before country.
  • Mr. Recidivist, Verhofstadt, for one, as well as those generally who support ever greater integration.

    The pretence that the EU is just a trading bloc has been laid bare both by the difficulties of leaving the 'club' and its drive to continually harmonise and centralise power. Why does the EU need its own army?
  • Jonathan said:

    No-one has set out a realistic vision for post Brexit Britain. Let alone a compelling or positive one. it's hard to tell whether the nostalgic twaddle coming out of the right is simply harmful or actively dangerous.

    JRM is not going to lead Britain to a new golden age.

    You Remainers just have no imagination....

    Which we are going to need in abundance when we Leave.

    We are leaving. If the wealth creating Remainers lack the imaginations, the Leavers will have to step up. Go for it.

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,326
    ydoethur said:

    Goodness me everyone is bad-tempered this morning.

    I shall go and do some practice. The final hymn is Love Divine and to achieve a proper climax I'm going to need some work on the eight foot horn to achieve full swell.

    I do hope everyone is feeling more amiable by the time I return.

    Which tune? Hydrofoil or the other one?
  • Mr. Observer, if it's just the Conservative Party wanting to leave, why did 52% of the country vote for it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hammond to announce an increase in nurses pay and measures on housebuilding in the Budget
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/18/philip-hammond-announce-pay-boost-nurses-budget-amid-pressure/

    It would be quicker for the Conservatives to identify which bits of Labour's manifesto they aren't planning on implementing! ;)
    Inheritance tax and top rate of income tax and corporation tax rises, renationalisations, ending PFI etc.
  • HYUFD said:

    McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.

    McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.

  • Jonathan said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    A good article, Mr. Nabavi, with which I largely agree.

    There's a great difference, though (besides scale of the pound of flesh demanded), which is that this follows a democratic vote in a free country, and isn't the price demanded following failure in war.

    ITV (I think) had some voxpops in Sweden, and it was surprising that a few asked (always hard to tell how representative they are) actively wanted the UK to be punished. The fact the ITV reporter (blonde bloke, relatively new) is a moron [after Grenfell he said it raised questions about how the country was governed and even who governed us, and later supported the notion of lower entry requirements to Oxbridge for the purposes of social engineering] may mean they were cherrypicked for that purpose.

    The EUphiles hate us and want to destroy us and they're going to make sure that they use the EU to achieve that goal.

    The government should stop trying to reason with them and start throwing their weight around. Get on the phone to Trump and start talk of a new alliance out of NATO. He'd be up for it to help put pressure on the rest of Europe to pay their way in defence and we could use it to get a better deal and show we aren't to be fucked with.

    Why the hell should we be paying billions in defence spending to help protect people who are actively trying to screw us over just because they can? It's completely pointless trying to be nice to people who have very malevolent plans for us.
    The the club.

    UK, US, Canada, Aus, NZ for starters...then Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam....add in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa.

    We could call it the Enterprise Economy Commonwealth. The EEC.

    What's that France, you want to join? Non...
    Nostalgic twaddle.
    Indeed!

    Not least the problem exists that nearly all our export earning businesses voted Remain.

    Though tarriff reduction on Australian iron ore will no doubt be a great boon to the Leave voting steel workers of South Wales.
    Steel? Pah! We are looking at making graphene the core of the Welsh economy....

    We handed leadership in grapheme technology to the Chinese and others almost as soon as it was discovered at Manchester University.

  • HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hammond to announce an increase in nurses pay and measures on housebuilding in the Budget
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/18/philip-hammond-announce-pay-boost-nurses-budget-amid-pressure/

    It would be quicker for the Conservatives to identify which bits of Labour's manifesto they aren't planning on implementing! ;)
    Inheritance tax and top rate of income tax and corporation tax rises, renationalisations, ending PFI etc.
    And borrowing 250 billion
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,573

    HYUFD said:

    McDonnell promises only to borrow to invest on Marr. Says nationalisation costs and issuing government bonds will be covered by the profits from the nationalised industries. He also promises to review PFI deals and will make savings longer term after buying them back from private companies.

    McDonnell is all spend by billions and ignores the level of debt.

    fantasy economics/.. buying back pfi.. and how much will that cost...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,192

    CD13 said:

    Dr Fox,

    I also believe that No Deal is likely. The EU are also constrained. They cannot see us get a good deal without risking more walk-outs. That's why blaming the UK side for the breakdown is illogical. I'm sure a trade talks would start tomorrow if we offered an eye-wateringly large sum to begin with. Even then, they'd be reluctant to concede anything.

    What do the EU want?

    Firstly to discourage others. If they receive a king's ransom to begin talks, they will hold out for a massively advantageous result. If that ends in us crawling back to beg forgiveness, even better.

    Blaming UK negotiators and claiming they (whoever they are) could do better is a little optimistic, surely?

    The EU simply sees itself as a rules based organisation, and abiding by rules and agreed procedures is their core goal.

    This would be the EU which actively agreed to or turned a blind eye to most of the major states breaking its rules when joining the euro, because it suited them to do so, would it? That EU?
This discussion has been closed.