zkojq wrote:

I hate to break it to you mate, but the empire is over.

This lecturing from a country that never decolonized and maintains Francafrique to this very day is really beyond belief.

zkojq wrote:

LJ wrote:

At the end of the day, the UK government wants to invest money in NHS, farming, customs controls, increased civil service and many other areas. There are limits as to how much the UK government can loan in the market and bills have to be paid.

Honestly, I'd never even thought about the direct cost to the government of opening up dozens of customs border posts. Won't be cheap - though I guess with no FTA with Europe and WTO trade terms, they would all be cashflow positive to the government for all the tariff revenue they'd bring in? Even if they're far more costly to the economy as a whole?

That's not even half of it: The EU is also a considerable efficiency boon for the member states because we all share the same (and for that actually rather cheap) european institutions for a significant range of purposes, and the UK must now rebuild all those institutions from scratch because it loses all these shared services with Brexit.

A whole army of new unelected bureaucrats will need to be hired to unspool all that brand-new, totally sovereign red tape, surely to the utter delight of the taxpaying UK population!

Arion640 wrote:

The EU has been embedded in your societies and not resisted enough so you all become complacent.

Well, as these threads have been shown long before, during and now after Brexit, we simply know a lot better what the European Union actually is and what it isn't, while the bizarre fantasies you've been peddling here have been holding up about as impressively as tissue paper in a rainstorm.

Arion640 wrote:

I dread to think what the European news agencies feed people on the continent. We had it bad enough with the BBC.

Yeah, the nowadays infamously weak-kneed BBC hasn't covered itself with glory at all during the whole Brexit saga. They've basically been led by the nose by lying, cheating, misleading brexiters without ever putting up any defense of actual facts with just a mere minimum of actual scrutiny.

The absurd rags you keep dragging in here have been stomped into the ground by the actual facts as they happened – almost none of their previous claims have survived the impact with reality and their only response was to intensify their shrieking propaganda to drown out the crumbling of their own absurd lies from the day before. And their gullible followers are still lapping it up, albeit with clearly growing desperation.

On the other hand, you can watch irish or continental reporting about Brexit all through the years and almost everything of it still holds up correctly, as do the official statements of the EU Commission and of the 27 other governments, while the UK government's utterances about Brexit have been little more like comical wishful thinking too embarrassing to repeat.

A101 wrote:

Yep it is ambitious I agree, but the Treaty of Rome had only taken 9 mths to complete

...after years of serious bi- and multilateral talks and actual convergence efforts!

That claim of yours is about as silly as saying that an olympic athlete just one day got out of bed and ran a world record with absolutely no preparation at all.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

No the Eu and the UK are no equals. The UK can be equal to individual EU members but compared to the whole EU 27 it just pretend to fight way above its weight.

So when the EU begins negotiations with say China or the US you don’t think you are there equals as well because of there economic capacity is greater than the EU?

When it comes to trade, “equality” is a function of market size. The UK market may be similar to Germany and France individually, and a bilateral negotiation there would be one of “equals”. However France and Germany are one “unit” for all intents and purposes, so it would be incorrect to suggest that the UK has as much to offer as DE and FR combined. It is, quite simply, not.

It is only “equal” in so far as it is a sovereign nation state. By that token, Bhutan or Moldova or equal to the UK.

As an aside, Shankar Singham, Brexiteer extraordinaire, notes in today’s DT that the EU is demanding the same level playing field provisions with China as it is with the UK. He even goes to acknowledge that this is a “fair” demand.

The ugly truth is that the EU is demanding trade-offs. India and China are also going to come in with demands that won’t sit easy 10 Downing. As is everyone else. This is the reality of all negotiations. I see a lot of it - even the ECJ stuff - as posturing to allow late concessions. But the ideological nature of Brexit is now spreading across the channel.

Any resolution here depends on rational minds putting economics above politics. The flaw here is that the Brexiteers set the tone by putting politics above economics. Unless the EU can be counted upon to be more intelligent and rational than the UK has been so far, we have a pretty good idea of how this ends.

A101 wrote:

The EU also said they will never reopen the WA either but they did, it might be subtle but it has changed along with the positions.

Nope.

The EU position was "The WA cannot be re-opened as long as the UK sticks to its current red lines!"

Boris caved and threw out Theresa May's red lines about Northern Ireland and with that UK concession the EU agreed to return to its own original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.

Boris sold that concession as his own great victory and the sad thing is you and most of your domestic press couldn't be bothered to point out that it was anything but that.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I think this needs to be modified to show where the actual red line is, with all the rhetoric that chart is not accurate either from an EU perspective

It is an illustration of the major steps on that staircase forced by the UK red lines, not a photographic map down to the wood grain!

Arion640 wrote:

Well airbus are now longer leaving the UK as previously predicted.

And if they do ever stop making the wings in the UK, they won’t be moving production to the EU. It will be off to China.

They are in the UK because:

1. the UK was in the EU

2. the UK was part of the same aviation authority which made certification even practical

3. the UK was just a short hop across the channel with easy and fast, reliable just-in-time delivery of wings to Tolouse.

4. the UK had the requisite talent available, in part related to the previous Concorde collaboration and to the UK's previous domestic manufacturers

None of that applies to China in any comparable way, and some meager cost savings (further undermined by increasing automation nowadays) would be devoured immediately by all those benefits falling away.

Pulling wing manufacturing back into the EU is the obvious logical response if the UK kicks itself out of the running there, too.

ElPistolero wrote:

The ugly truth is that the EU is demanding trade-offs. India and China are also going to come in with demands that won’t sit easy 10 Downing. As is everyone else. This is the reality of all negotiations. I see a lot of it - even the ECJ stuff - as posturing to allow late concessions. But the ideological nature of Brexit is now spreading across the channel.

Any resolution here depends on rational minds putting economics above politics. The flaw here is that the Brexiteers set the tone by putting politics above economics. Unless the EU can be counted upon to be more intelligent and rational than the UK has been so far, we have a pretty good idea of how this ends.

For the EU the propaganda side of things is mostly relevant as far as it is a predictor of the UK's future unreliability relative to agreements being made.

In short: The more rabid the UK rhetoric, the fewer concessions can be made by the EU because of the already pre-created UK-domestic pressure and/or excuses for violating those same agreements.

zkojq wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

You all forget we retain our soft empire, the commonwealth. We are never alone.

This kind of thing is what I find absolutely hilarious about the English psyche: you genuinely believe that everybody loves you unreservedly and then act with that in mind - expecting everybody to give you special treatment. You genuinely believed that India loved being colonised. You genuinely believe that New Zealand didn't mind you screwing us in 1973. You genuinely think that Windrush didn't affect the way that the people of the Caribbean view the UK and it's government. You genuinely think that everybody in Scotland loves Westminster ruling over them. Then you get all surprised when India says that any trade agreement would have to come with big visa concessions for Indian nationals. I hate to break it to you mate, but the empire is over.



As an aside, one thing I like about the French psyche is that we know most of the rest of the world doesn't like us - and we act accordingly.

New Zealand genuinely like us, a huge amount of kiwi’s live in the UK and vis versa. I’ve even been a migrant to New Zealand, lived, worked and payed my taxes there. I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that.

The CANZUK + US alliance is possibly the strongest in the world.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep it is ambitious I agree, but the Treaty of Rome had only taken 9 mths to complete

...after years of serious bi- and multilateral talks and actual convergence efforts!

That claim of yours is about as silly as saying that an olympic athlete just one day got out of bed and ran a world record with absolutely no preparation at all.

We are talking about the actual treaty, the Customs union under the treaty of Rome was first talked about in its current form (before Lisbon)from the Messina conference of June 1955 which lead to Spaak Committee


The actual meetings in relation to the treaty of Rome begins with Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom in Brussels of June 1956 and was signed on the 25 March 1957 so yes the actual treaty was done and dusted in 9 mths.

If you really want to talk about when Brexit start you can go all the way back to the early 1970. If a FTA with the EU is concluded this year it does not mean negotiations for start back in the 1970’s

You guys like to twist everything so the EU comes up smelling like a rose, but to get to that point you have to shovel a lot of manure on it and that’s all those on here praising the EU like shoveling a lot of manure

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

The EU also said they will never reopen the WA either but they did, it might be subtle but it has changed along with the positions.

Nope.

The EU position was "The WA cannot be re-opened as long as the UK sticks to its current red lines!"

Boris caved and threw out Theresa May's red lines about Northern Ireland and with that UK concession the EU agreed to return to its own original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.

Boris sold that concession as his own great victory and the sad thing is you and most of your domestic press couldn't be bothered to point out that it was anything but that.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I think this needs to be modified to show where the actual red line is, with all the rhetoric that chart is not accurate either from an EU perspective

It is an illustration of the major steps on that staircase forced by the UK red lines, not a photographic map down to the wood grain!

Certainly not all the original proposal as it was going to leave NI within the sphere of EU influence in perpetuity, Northern Ireland Parliament now has a say in whether to continue in it or not which is more inline with the GFA for NI consent, so even if I think that it would have been easier for Johnson to walk away from the WA/PD in its entirety he cobbled together a resonable outcome for the people of NI to a degree considering he was dealing with a hostile parliament and aggressive EU hell bent on punishment.

Arion640 wrote:

New Zealand genuinely like us, a huge amount of kiwi’s live in the UK and vis versa. I’ve even been a migrant to New Zealand, lived, worked and payed my taxes there. I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that.

Lol. Canadians like the UK too.

Canadians most likely to report feeling a closest attachment to the area of Great Britain or the country of France – When asked what European country, if any, they felt most attached to, two out of five Canadians answered with the area of Great Britain (40%) and almost one in five said France (18%). Germany follows at six per cent. Eight per cent say none and one per cent are unsure.

And yet:

Majority of Canadians are unsympathetic or somewhat unsympathetic towards the idea of Brexit – A majority of Canadians are unsympathetic (48%) or somewhat unsympathetic (16%) towards the idea of Brexit. Just over one in ten Canadians said they were very sympathetic (11%) or somewhat sympathetic (13%). Thirteen per cent are unsure.

Over six in ten Canadians say the European Union should be the priority relation for the policy field of trade and investment – When asked who Canada should choose for its relational priorities for the policy field of trade and investment, over three in five Canadians said that relations with the European Union should be a priority (67%). Eighteen per cent said the United Kingdom should be the priority relation and fifteen per cent were unsure.

Majority of Canadians say that the European Union should be the priority relation for security and defence – When asked who Canada should choose for its relational priorities for the policy field of security and defence, over half said relations with the European Union should be a priority (56%). Twenty-nine per cent said the United Kingdom should be the priority relation and fifteen per cent were unsure.

So, y’know, better hope they don’t have to choose between one or the other. Thing is, immigration trends are wearing down ties between the old dominions and the UK. Most immigrants these days come from former British colonies that view Brexit with more schadenfreude than sympathy. Especially when tone-deaf Brexiteers think what the EU is doing to them is comparable to the heady racism and discrimination of the Empaa-yuh.

https://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads ... d-tabs.pdf

Arion640 wrote:

The CANZUK + US alliance is possibly the strongest in the world.

Really grasping for straws now haha. The US is the strongest country in the world. It spends 13X what the UK spends on defence, and spends it a lot more effectively too.

CANZUK are like an Amazon Prime add-on item. The US literally doesn’t need them to achieve its goals. CANZUK on its own would probably struggle with Iran, let alone Russia or China.

Even within them, influence varies significantly. Canada has long learned to build deep ties with US states to balance DC’s impulses (a characteristic of the federal system). The UK doesn’t have that - and probably never will because of geography. And then there’s the Irish community. I wouldn’t take US support for granted. Not least because support for Brexit is divided on partisan lines. Administrations can change...

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

The EU also said they will never reopen the WA either but they did, it might be subtle but it has changed along with the positions.

Nope.

The EU position was "The WA cannot be re-opened as long as the UK sticks to its current red lines!"

Boris caved and threw out Theresa May's red lines about Northern Ireland and with that UK concession the EU agreed to return to its own original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.

Boris sold that concession as his own great victory and the sad thing is you and most of your domestic press couldn't be bothered to point out that it was anything but that.

A101 wrote:

I think this needs to be modified to show where the actual red line is, with all the rhetoric that chart is not accurate either from an EU perspective

It is an illustration of the major steps on that staircase forced by the UK red lines, not a photographic map down to the wood grain!

Certainly not all the original proposal as it was going to leave NI within the sphere of EU influence in perpetuity, Northern Ireland Parliament now has a say in whether to continue in it or not which is more inline with the GFA for NI consent, so even if I think that it would have been easier for Johnson to walk away from the WA/PD in its entirety he cobbled together a resonable outcome for the people of NI to a degree considering he was dealing with a hostile parliament and aggressive EU hell bent on punishment.

So...ummm... why were the Unionist and former Boris fans in the DUP so angry with him and the “concessions” he obtained. They voted against his deal, didn’t they? Could it be that they realized he’d basically committed to what Theresa May refused to commit to - as has been pointed out several times now?

It’s nice that you folk in England think you’ve addressed NI unionist concerns, but they don’t seem to agree. Not that their view matters, apparently. England first; union second, it seems. But yeah, NI is comparable to a US state lol.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Nope.

The EU position was "The WA cannot be re-opened as long as the UK sticks to its current red lines!"

Boris caved and threw out Theresa May's red lines about Northern Ireland and with that UK concession the EU agreed to return to its own original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.

Boris sold that concession as his own great victory and the sad thing is you and most of your domestic press couldn't be bothered to point out that it was anything but that.


It is an illustration of the major steps on that staircase forced by the UK red lines, not a photographic map down to the wood grain!

Certainly not all the original proposal as it was going to leave NI within the sphere of EU influence in perpetuity, Northern Ireland Parliament now has a say in whether to continue in it or not which is more inline with the GFA for NI consent, so even if I think that it would have been easier for Johnson to walk away from the WA/PD in its entirety he cobbled together a resonable outcome for the people of NI to a degree considering he was dealing with a hostile parliament and aggressive EU hell bent on punishment.

So...ummm... why were the Unionist and former Boris fans in the DUP so angry with him and the “concessions” he obtained. They voted against his deal, didn’t they? Could it be that they realized he’d basically committed to what Theresa May refused to commit to - as has been pointed out several times now?

It’s nice that you folk in England think you’ve addressed NI unionist concerns, but they don’t seem to agree. Not that their view matters, apparently. England first; union second, it seems. But yeah, NI is comparable to a US state lol.

They also didn’t want a border between ROI/NI either they didn’t vote for TM’s deal either. What were they going to do agree on or disagree with everything that was brought up like the EU. The EU weaponised the GFA/NI situation to its own advantage to create a split and they achieved that, Johnson need a symbolic deal with the EU that was also went with the ideals of the GFA for consent he got that, by luck or design it created problems for parliament and Johnson gambled on the GE that the electorate was over the shenanigans of parliament and the rest is history

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Certainly not all the original proposal as it was going to leave NI within the sphere of EU influence in perpetuity, Northern Ireland Parliament now has a say in whether to continue in it or not which is more inline with the GFA for NI consent, so even if I think that it would have been easier for Johnson to walk away from the WA/PD in its entirety he cobbled together a resonable outcome for the people of NI to a degree considering he was dealing with a hostile parliament and aggressive EU hell bent on punishment.

So...ummm... why were the Unionist and former Boris fans in the DUP so angry with him and the “concessions” he obtained. They voted against his deal, didn’t they? Could it be that they realized he’d basically committed to what Theresa May refused to commit to - as has been pointed out several times now?

It’s nice that you folk in England think you’ve addressed NI unionist concerns, but they don’t seem to agree. Not that their view matters, apparently. England first; union second, it seems. But yeah, NI is comparable to a US state lol.

They also didn’t want a border between ROI/NI either they didn’t vote for TM’s deal either. What were they going to do agree on or disagree with everything that was brought up like the EU. The EU weaponised the GFA/NI situation to its own advantage to create a split and they achieved that, Johnson need a symbolic deal with the EU that was also went with the ideals of the GFA for consent he got that, by luck or design it created problems for parliament and Johnson gambled on the GE that the electorate was over the shenanigans of parliament and the rest is history

I agree with your analysis of the politics around it, but it does highlight the difference between unitary and federal states.

With Parliamentary representation skewed towards England (82% of the seats), the nations have literally no recourse but to go along with what England wants. If you were NI or Scottish, how would you feel about that?

Personally, never a fan of Scottish independence, but Brexit has managed to turn it into an issue again. The arguments against it - especially the economic ones - are well-founded. But then again, what basis is there to believe they’ll be more susceptible to Project Feat/intelligent about economics than Brexiteers?

ElPistolero wrote:

With Parliamentary representation skewed towards England (82% of the seats), the nations have literally no recourse but to go along with what England wants. If you were NI or Scottish, how would you feel about that?

No I have to disagree there as each referendum needs corresponding legislation to approve it, they can do what ever they want and put caveats on it such as a double majority.

In Australia you have to have majority of the electorate and majority of the states and territories for it to pass or it could be a simple thing that say 95% of the electorate has to vote and a minimum pass of say 65% to reduce the weight of the largest area.

In the UK it could still be first past the post 50%+1 as well as three of the four nations or perhaps majority of the elected seats or combinations or what ever.

It also helps that in the Australian case they know the end result(Australian Republic referendum)will be so there is none of the infighting like we have seen here in respects to the leave campaign even though David Cameron’s pledge of what leave meant out of the CU/SM

ElPistolero wrote:

Personally, never a fan of Scottish independence, but Brexit has managed to turn it into an issue again. The arguments against it - especially the economic ones - are well-founded. But then again, what basis is there to believe they’ll be more susceptible to Project Feat/intelligent about economics than Brexiteers?

Look if the EU wasn’t intent of an greater political union which is more than on its way to federalism and was a purely trade oriented union and the decision was based on pur economic rationale I would have vote to stay, but unfortunately the EU is more than just a trade organisation.

Just enjoy the EU exploding without the money from the UK.

A101 wrote:

Look if the EU wasn’t intent of an greater political union which is more than on its way to federalism and was a purely trade oriented union and the decision was based on pur economic rationale I would have vote to stay, but unfortunately the EU is more than just a trade organisation.

You had that. It was called EFTA and the UK could have perfectly stayed there.

But no, the economy was in the crapper and EFTA didn't help much.

I don’t see the EU explode.

The amount of the UK contributions is not massive in the scheme of things.

bennett123 wrote:

I don’t see the EU explode.

The amount of the UK contributions is not massive in the scheme of things.

The contributions to the EU aren't massive in the scheme of things........

So does anyone keep track of all the trade deals the Johnson government is making these days? It was promised to be easy and swift, so I guess a month in we can see the. first results, right?

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

New Zealand genuinely like us, a huge amount of kiwi’s live in the UK and vis versa. I’ve even been a migrant to New Zealand, lived, worked and payed my taxes there. I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that.

Lol. Canadians like the UK too.

Canadians most likely to report feeling a closest attachment to the area of Great Britain or the country of France – When asked what European country, if any, they felt most attached to, two out of five Canadians answered with the area of Great Britain (40%) and almost one in five said France (18%). Germany follows at six per cent. Eight per cent say none and one per cent are unsure.

And yet:

Majority of Canadians are unsympathetic or somewhat unsympathetic towards the idea of Brexit – A majority of Canadians are unsympathetic (48%) or somewhat unsympathetic (16%) towards the idea of Brexit. Just over one in ten Canadians said they were very sympathetic (11%) or somewhat sympathetic (13%). Thirteen per cent are unsure.

Over six in ten Canadians say the European Union should be the priority relation for the policy field of trade and investment – When asked who Canada should choose for its relational priorities for the policy field of trade and investment, over three in five Canadians said that relations with the European Union should be a priority (67%). Eighteen per cent said the United Kingdom should be the priority relation and fifteen per cent were unsure.

Majority of Canadians say that the European Union should be the priority relation for security and defence – When asked who Canada should choose for its relational priorities for the policy field of security and defence, over half said relations with the European Union should be a priority (56%). Twenty-nine per cent said the United Kingdom should be the priority relation and fifteen per cent were unsure.

So, y’know, better hope they don’t have to choose between one or the other. Thing is, immigration trends are wearing down ties between the old dominions and the UK. Most immigrants these days come from former British colonies that view Brexit with more schadenfreude than sympathy. Especially when tone-deaf Brexiteers think what the EU is doing to them is comparable to the heady racism and discrimination of the Empaa-yuh.

https://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads ... d-tabs.pdf

Arion640 wrote:

The CANZUK + US alliance is possibly the strongest in the world.

Really grasping for straws now haha. The US is the strongest country in the world. It spends 13X what the UK spends on defence, and spends it a lot more effectively too.

CANZUK are like an Amazon Prime add-on item. The US literally doesn’t need them to achieve its goals. CANZUK on its own would probably struggle with Iran, let alone Russia or China.

Even within them, influence varies significantly. Canada has long learned to build deep ties with US states to balance DC’s impulses (a characteristic of the federal system). The UK doesn’t have that - and probably never will because of geography. And then there’s the Irish community. I wouldn’t take US support for granted. Not least because support for Brexit is divided on partisan lines. Administrations can change...

Zkojp or however you spell it, said Britain was hated around the world, so take your pick, which will it be?

CANZUK isn’t just a defence alliance, it’s a social, political and economic one too. We would also easily defeat Iran as the UK has nuclear weapons.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

So...ummm... why were the Unionist and former Boris fans in the DUP so angry with him and the “concessions” he obtained. They voted against his deal, didn’t they? Could it be that they realized he’d basically committed to what Theresa May refused to commit to - as has been pointed out several times now?

It’s nice that you folk in England think you’ve addressed NI unionist concerns, but they don’t seem to agree. Not that their view matters, apparently. England first; union second, it seems. But yeah, NI is comparable to a US state lol.

They also didn’t want a border between ROI/NI either they didn’t vote for TM’s deal either. What were they going to do agree on or disagree with everything that was brought up like the EU. The EU weaponised the GFA/NI situation to its own advantage to create a split and they achieved that, Johnson need a symbolic deal with the EU that was also went with the ideals of the GFA for consent he got that, by luck or design it created problems for parliament and Johnson gambled on the GE that the electorate was over the shenanigans of parliament and the rest is history

I agree with your analysis of the politics around it, but it does highlight the difference between unitary and federal states.

With Parliamentary representation skewed towards England (82% of the seats), the nations have literally no recourse but to go along with what England wants. If you were NI or Scottish, how would you feel about that?

Personally, never a fan of Scottish independence, but Brexit has managed to turn it into an issue again. The arguments against it - especially the economic ones - are well-founded. But then again, what basis is there to believe they’ll be more susceptible to Project Feat/intelligent about economics than Brexiteers?

That’s why the UK has devolved governments....Scotland can bring in laws on pretty much anything except Defence and Foreign Policy. They have those powers. Wales isn’t far behind Scotland.

Arion640 wrote:

CANZUK isn’t just a defence alliance, it’s a social, political and economic one too. We would also easily defeat Iran as the UK has nuclear weapons.

So you would be having the UK quit the EU because they can't call the shots to end up being ordered around by the US.

Lovely metaphor.

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

Still way too much.

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

it might be a trivial amount but someone still has to pay for it, and not everyone of those 450mil pay tax. that's why there is a lot of angst among members whose budget is it coming out of?

Arion640 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I dread to think what the European news agencies feed people on the continent. We had it bad enough with the BBC.

The think the BBC has been biased towards the EU? Pull the other one.

Luckily we don't get the absolute BS agenda of the The Sun, Express, Telegraph and the complete incompetence of a large array of BBC 'stars' faling to hold people to account in interviews on the other side of the channel. This has been going on for decades. Watch Irish TV and see how they don't accept blatent lies from the likes of Farage when interviewed. On UK TV the vast majority of the time people get away with murder.

The EU has been embedded in your societies and not resisted enough so you all become complacent.

Not resisted enough . Jesus h christ. It's not a friggin T1000 terminator.

Maybe we should create one in the future and send it back to present day to wack the heads of the Brexiteers. But if we did that, it would have already happened, so we didn't. Damn.

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

it might be a trivial amount but someone still has to pay for it, and not everyone of those 450mil pay tax. that's why there is a lot of angst among members whose budget is it coming out of?

There is two different discussions;

Were shall the money being spent and who shall pay what.

North is probably more open to use money for infrastructure and research.

South and east is more opento spend on farming and regional support.

If that can balanced the north are probably more happy with paying more. For farming perhaps not so much.

I think looking at history there will be 2-3 major meetings before everything is agreed.

Arion640 wrote:

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

Still way too much.

That is quite obviously just a pretense since your pointless Brexit has already poured many times that down the drain with nothing at all to show for it, and the pumps are still running hot and will continue to do so, and not a peep from you on that!

That whole raft of additional bureaucracy that needs to rebuilt in the UK because it can't use the common european institutions any more will be expensive, too, both erecting it and then feeding it for the duration, plus all the private-sector benefits of EU membership which are now going away and which will impact the UK tax revenue as well, both directly in declining revenues and profits and indirectly in declining personal incomes...

The UK's actual (net!) contributions were a pittance relative to what you're losing now!

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

it might be a trivial amount but someone still has to pay for it, and not everyone of those 450mil pay tax. that's why there is a lot of angst among members whose budget is it coming out of?

Pretty much on the same level as with any previous budget negotiation, so nothing new.

There is no question that the member countries are able to make up for the shortfall, it's merely what the conditions will be.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The CANZUK + US alliance is possibly the strongest in the world.

Really grasping for straws now haha. The US is the strongest country in the world. It spends 13X what the UK spends on defence, and spends it a lot more effectively too.

So that was why the US refused to sell the AMRAM the UK wanted and they got stuck with the same version other NATO members got...

Best regards
Thomas

Klaus wrote:

That whole raft of additional bureaucracy that needs to rebuilt in the UK because it can't use the common european institutions any more will be expensive, too, both erecting it and then feeding it for the duration,

Is that really such a bad thing?

All those jobs which were part of the function of the EU will now return to the UK and now will be performed 100% by UK civil servants, yes it may mean more expenditure by the UKGOV but then that also has a knock on effect for the UK economy with direct and indirect tax within the UK and it generally means more money flowing through the UK economy. Effectively it’s a type of stimulus for the UK.

Klaus wrote:

Pretty much on the same level as with any previous budget negotiation, so nothing new.

There is no question that the member countries are able to make up for the shortfall, it's merely what the conditions will be.

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

A101 wrote:

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

Really, it's no different from any other budget discussion. From local to supranational level.

Happens even in private companies with different departments fighting it out for resources.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

Really, it's no different from any other budget discussion. From local to supranational level.

Happens even in private companies with different departments fighting it out for resources.

EU is not a private entity and it is quite different. The EU now has a 91billion(2018 membership bill was 13Billion)black hole over 7 years is nothing to sneeze about, Government budgets have been blown apart for much less. Either members have to stump up the extra coin or the budget slashed those are the stark realities for the EU.

Arion640 wrote:

Zkojp or however you spell it, said Britain was hated around the world, so take your pick, which will it be?

40% like; the remaining 60% span the spectrum of “don’t care”to “hate”.

The only reason I pointed out the 40% statistic is because even those 40% don’t all prioritize the UK over the EU. Over 25% (11% out of the 40%) of the them think the EU should be a priority on security/defence, and more than 50% (22% out of the 40%) of them consider the EU more important for investment/trade.

Liking another country, and doing it a favour are two very different things

Arion640 wrote:

CANZUK isn’t just a defence alliance, it’s a social, political and economic one too. We would also easily defeat Iran as the UK has nuclear weapons.

CANZUK doesn’t exist, period. Socially, politically, and economically, those countries are defined by their geography, not by membership in some made up club. Canada is distinctly North American and has much closer ties to the US than it ever will to the UK; NZ and AU have more in common with each other than they do with either of the other two countries. None of them necessarily want to be part of this dreamed up Alliance, not least because it looks like a last ditch effort to demonstrate that the UK retains influence in those places. Nobody wants to be seen as being in thrall of the UK these days, certainly not the post-Brexit one.

As for nuclear weapons, Iran might get them soon too. And even if they don’t, I think you’ll find that there is no political, social or cultural appetite in CANZ (?) for the civilian casualties that will follow in Iran. Unless Iran nuked them first, those three would walk the other way if the UK started talking about using nukes.

Must be one of those social or cultural differences.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

With Parliamentary representation skewed towards England (82% of the seats), the nations have literally no recourse but to go along with what England wants. If you were NI or Scottish, how would you feel about that?

No I have to disagree there as each referendum needs corresponding legislation to approve it, they can do what ever they want and put caveats on it such as a double majority.

In Australia you have to have majority of the electorate and majority of the states and territories for it to pass or it could be a simple thing that say 95% of the electorate has to vote and a minimum pass of say 65% to reduce the weight of the largest area.

In the UK it could still be first past the post 50%+1 as well as three of the four nations or perhaps majority of the elected seats or combinations or what ever.

It also helps that in the Australian case they know the end result(Australian Republic referendum)will be so there is none of the infighting like we have seen here in respects to the leave campaign even though David Cameron’s pledge of what leave meant out of the CU/SM

ElPistolero wrote:

Personally, never a fan of Scottish independence, but Brexit has managed to turn it into an issue again. The arguments against it - especially the economic ones - are well-founded. But then again, what basis is there to believe they’ll be more susceptible to Project Feat/intelligent about economics than Brexiteers?

Look if the EU wasn’t intent of an greater political union which is more than on its way to federalism and was a purely trade oriented union and the decision was based on pur economic rationale I would have vote to stay, but unfortunately the EU is more than just a trade organisation.

Legislation developed - and passed - by a House of Commons in which 82% of the seats belong to one nation of the four nations.

The nations could band together to put up any number of amendments, but with only 18% they could (would?) still end up with whatever suits England.

Like I said, they exist at the whim of England. Their interests are subject to the whims of English MPs. Therein lies the problem.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

Really, it's no different from any other budget discussion. From local to supranational level.

Happens even in private companies with different departments fighting it out for resources.

EU is not a private entity and it is quite different. The EU now has a 91billion(2018 membership bill was 13Billion)black hole over 7 years is nothing to sneeze about, Government budgets have been blown apart for much less. Either members have to stump up the extra coin or the budget slashed those are the stark realities for the EU.

It doesn't matter if it's private or public. Budget discussions are always like that.

Either net recipients will agree to take less or net contributors will agree to pay more, more likely something in between.

91 billion works out at 13 billion per year. That's 0,3% of Germany's GDP or 0,5% of France's GDP. Put into perspective, it's very little on the grand scheme of things. For example, the 40 billion pounds a year that Brexit is costing the British economy.

A single year pays for 3 and half years of British membership of the EU. That's (part of) the cost of "freedom".

Hum, I think you need to check your numbers: https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/european-union-eu-budget-share-of-contributions/

UK Rebate

The amount which the United Kingdom contributes to the European Union budget was a key issue during the Brexit referendum of 2016. Prior to the referendum, the “Leave” campaign famously claimed that the UK sends the EU 350 million British pounds a week, a figure which omitted the rebate which the UK receives from the EU as well as public sector receipts. As of 2018, the UK contributed approximately 8.93 billion to the EU budget and received 8.52 billion back.

The more interesting question is who will be adequately compensated in the UK by your own budget.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

Really, it's no different from any other budget discussion. From local to supranational level.

Happens even in private companies with different departments fighting it out for resources.

EU is not a private entity and it is quite different. The EU now has a 91billion(2018 membership bill was 13Billion)black hole over 7 years is nothing to sneeze about, Government budgets have been blown apart for much less. Either members have to stump up the extra coin or the budget slashed those are the stark realities for the EU.

No problem, as the vast majority of that is slashed in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The rest will be paid for by those former UK companies tax revenue with ease .... and then some.

Best regards
Thomas

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

That whole raft of additional bureaucracy that needs to rebuilt in the UK because it can't use the common european institutions any more will be expensive, too, both erecting it and then feeding it for the duration,

Is that really such a bad thing?

All those jobs which were part of the function of the EU will now return to the UK and now will be performed 100% by UK civil servants, yes it may mean more expenditure by the UKGOV but then that also has a knock on effect for the UK economy with direct and indirect tax within the UK and it generally means more money flowing through the UK economy. Effectively it’s a type of stimulus for the UK.

So now, all of a sudden, you're all for tax hikes to regular UK citizens for then blowing all that freshly raised money on wholly unproductive unelected bureaucrats?

Fascinating. Circus contortionists have nothing on you!

Klaus wrote:

Pretty much on the same level as with any previous budget negotiation, so nothing new.

There is no question that the member countries are able to make up for the shortfall, it's merely what the conditions will be.

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

Turns out people like getting money much better than paying up, and the new EU budget is the first time in history that anybody noticed. Who knew?

Arion640 wrote:

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

Still way too much.

That is quite obviously just a pretense since your pointless Brexit has already poured many times that down the drain with nothing at all to show for it, and the pumps are still running hot and will continue to do so, and not a peep from you on that!

That whole raft of additional bureaucracy that needs to rebuilt in the UK because it can't use the common european institutions any more will be expensive, too, both erecting it and then feeding it for the duration, plus all the private-sector benefits of EU membership which are now going away and which will impact the UK tax revenue as well...

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

You all realize that 350 million per week divided per 450 million people is less then 1 euro per person and week? Per year we talks about 50 euro per person.

The difference in butget discussioon is less then 0.1% of national gdp per year.

it might be a trivial amount but someone still has to pay for it, and not everyone of those 450mil pay tax. that's why there is a lot of angst among members whose budget is it coming out of?

Pretty much on the same level as with any previous budget negotiation, so nothing new. There is no question of the member countries being able to make up for the shortfall but only what the conditions will be.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

That whole raft of additional bureaucracy that needs to rebuilt in the UK because it can't use the common european institutions any more will be expensive, too, both erecting it and then feeding it for the duration,

Is that really such a bad thing?

All those jobs which were part of the function of the EU will now return to the UK and now will be performed 100% by UK civil servants, yes it may mean more expenditure by the UKGOV but then that also has a knock on effect for the UK economy with direct and indirect tax within the UK and it generally means more money flowing through the UK economy. Effectively it’s a type of stimulus for the UK.

So now, all of a sudden, you're all for tax hikes to regular UK citizens for then blowing all that freshly raised money on wholly unproductive unelected bureaucrats?

Fascinating. Circus contortionists have nothing on you!

You make it sound like that the UK needs to rebuild all the functions in which the EU did, which is far from the case. The majority of UK civil servants seconded to the EU will most likely fill the newly created positions in the UK.

Talk about contortionists, don't get a bad back from shovelling all that bovine excrement on the EU's rose bush

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Pretty much on the same level as with any previous budget negotiation, so nothing new.

There is no question that the member countries are able to make up for the shortfall, it's merely what the conditions will be.

Oh no one is questioning that collectively that member nations can cover it, but the infighting no one really wants to cover the shortfall out of there own budgets, out of the remains 27 members only 9 of those are net contributors to the EU budget those remaining are net beneficiaries so the shortfall will fall onto the 9 net contributors, taxpayers are a pretty fickle bunch they don’t like paying more than they have too.

Turns out people like getting money much better than paying up, and the new EU budget is the first time in history that anybody noticed. Who knew?

So EU citizens are just mindless numbats and don't like holding there government to account over how they spend there tax money at the EU. Who Knew?

The man is spot on about most things in this videos. However on some things i disagree.

https://youtu.be/Nem8PbkwcXA

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

Might be peanuts but they are still split over it, otherwise they would have agreed by now.Oh don’t forget to add that extra billion that they hit us with that’s an extra 7 billion over 7 years on top of the £91B out of the kitty.

One also has to remember government generally don’t add to the budget they normally rob Peter to pay Paul

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

And how much has the UK still gained in economic power for this 0,4% of its GDP? And how much would have the UK paid to civil servants if they had to do all the duties the EU has?

Only looking at cost is very onesided.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.


https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

And how much has the UK still gained in economic power for this 0,4% of its GDP? And how much would have the UK paid to civil servants if they had to do all the duties the EU has?

Only looking at cost is very onesided.

immaterial to the debate as it’s the EU budget facing the shortfall, even Germany are saying no to an increase 0.07% (1.07%)increase ah peanuts remember ........ And the EU parliament what to cap at 1.3%

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc. Where does the money to the EU go to? It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats. The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes. The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.