travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by travolta on Feb 11, 2019 14:29:13 GMT
I believe Greece has made that comment, already , in Greek and I concur.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 530
Likes: 380
|
Post by toffeeboy on Feb 12, 2019 13:45:11 GMT
Like Corbyn you seem to have missed the whole idea of negotiating. No Deal doesn't suit either party but it is better than the deal currently on the table, we are leaving and unless the EU gives us a deal that is better than a no deal then we leave with that.
We need a leader that is prepared to say that to the EU and get an acceptable deal and then go to parliament and say right now you choose either this deal or no deal. This would be the only way to deliver Brexit, if the EU doesn't want to give us an acceptable deal then that is their choice but the majority voted to leave and that is what parliament should delivery. Not a second referendum, not a "well we'll stay in a bit longer", leave on the best terms possible and if that WTO rules then so be it.
Also if we leave with no deal then we don't pay the £39 billion as it won't be though article 50 it will be revoke the original legislation put in place to join.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 12, 2019 14:00:20 GMT
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 12, 2019 14:14:50 GMT
"Theresa May's Cabinet failed to discuss Brexit at all and was one of the shortest that ministers can remember, The Daily Telegraph has been told. One minister said that it was "utterly surreal" as Cabinet instead held discussions about food waste, fly-tipping and child poverty with just 45 days to go before Brexit."
---
Surreal is right. May has to go regardless of how Brexit turns out.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 530
Likes: 380
|
Post by toffeeboy on Feb 12, 2019 14:30:59 GMT
Okay so if this £39 billion is our agreed figures over the seven year cycle why it is to be paid over 20 - 30 years.
Also if it is our contribution for the 7 year cycle then it kind of blows all remainer claims that being a member of the EU doesn't cost us anything because I wouldn't call £5.5 billion a year nothing.
We are no longer getting the benefit so no longer pay in to the money vacumn that is the EU. If you leave a golf club you don't keep paying for the next year and half do you, if budgets are set then they should have put in that you can only leave at the end of a budget period or have to pay for the rest of the budget period. I am fairly sure that even our incompetent government would have picked up any clause like that in the agreement.
I find it interesting that no one mentioned the vast amount of assets that the EU has and technically the UK owns a 28th or more of these so why shouldn't the EU be buying these back from the UK, this divorce is just looking at maintenance payments as far as I can see not a division of assets at all.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 12, 2019 14:49:25 GMT
I find it interesting that no one mentioned the vast amount of assets that the EU has and technically the UK owns a 28th or more of these so why shouldn't the EU be buying these back from the UK, this divorce is just looking at maintenance payments as far as I can see not a division of assets at all. Probably because it is "complicated" (jump to points 70 and on).
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 12, 2019 17:28:45 GMT
"The EU’s maladministration watchdog has accused the European Commission of ignoring its own rules when it appointed its most senior official last year. The European Ombudsman criticised the lightning quick double promotion of Martin Selmayr, a close ally of Jean-Claude Juncker, as secretary general of the commission last year. Mr Selmayr was promoted to deputy secretary-general of the commission at a February 21 meeting of the EU commissioners. Shortly afterwards, the secretary-general Alexander Italianer announced his retirement. Mr Juncker, the president of the commission, promptly proposed the divisive Mr Selmayr take on the role, leaving shell-shocked commissioners to rubber stamp Mr Selmayr's second promotion in a matter of minutes. Mr Selmayr’s appointment “did not follow EU law, in letter and spirit, and did not follow the Commission’s own rules”, Emily O’Reilly, the Ombudsman said" (my use of bold)
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 12, 2019 18:02:13 GMT
Yeah, I remember reading about that at the time and being pretty unimpressed by it. Still, whilst it doesn't excuse what goes on in the European Commission (or anywhere else for that matter) our own parliament is, unfortunately, hardly a model of probity.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 12, 2019 23:35:38 GMT
Yeah, I remember reading about that at the time and being pretty unimpressed by it. Still, whilst it doesn't excuse what goes on in the European Commission (or anywhere else for that matter) our own parliament is, unfortunately, hardly a model of probity. Key difference is that if dodgy things go on within our government, we can vote them out at the next election. Not something we can do with the top of the EU. Having said that, May seems to be doing a pretty good job of reducing support for the Tories all by herself (I'll be glad to see her and the current so-called Conservatives gone), ditto Corbyn.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 13, 2019 0:21:48 GMT
Not really - we can't vote our civil servants out of office, can we. And that's what he is, the head of the EU's civil service.
Don't get me wrong, the way he obtained the role was shady and shabby (not to mention a great example of how the EU should not work), but comparing him (or indeed the role) with that of an elected politician is apples and oranges.
Your criticism is better directed at Juncker. However, whether you like the system or not he was elected, effectively both by the 28 heads of state (who were themselves elected {cough TM cough}) and the MEPs (who were themselves elected).
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 13, 2019 12:33:07 GMT
I am always amused by the people who find the fine detail of the democratic structure of the EU Commission more important than your own freedom to cross borders, to go and live in any other EU country, to trade without barriers, to make the rules that apply when you visit or do business in all our near neighbour countries. Yeah blue passport, but not so welcome round the world as the red one used to be.
There will be no "crash out" brexit because no politician wants responsibility for that laid at their party's door. So in the end all Brexit is is swapping being in at the top table making the rules of the EU for Theresa May's second division trading relationship, accepting rules made elsewhere. Made in the very place where the democratic structures so criticised hold power. Anyone thinking rationally would be campaigning to remain in the EU in order to reform the aspects of it that you don't like.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by travolta on Feb 13, 2019 18:30:55 GMT
Oh you kid! we were doing this before you were born, ask your parents.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 13, 2019 19:07:24 GMT
Out of respect for your age, I have decided to spare you my previous answer to this post.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 13, 2019 19:36:38 GMT
.... There will be no "crash out" brexit because no politician wants responsibility for that laid at their party's door.... Unfortunately on this I feel you might be wrong. If May does not want a crash out, she is now playing a very dangerous strategy. If Parliament ultimately decides it won't accept the TM deal it is increasingly likely that the result could well be a no deal exit.
I think it is very unlikely that TM would revoke A50. And only the Govt has the power to do that. And to extend it requires not just a request but an acquiesence by the other side. It may well be coming to the point that the 27 are roundly fed up with the utter failure of the UK to come with either a viable proposal or one for which they have pre-built a parliamentary consensus.
In which case a no deal could easily happen by virtue of the 27 heads of govt collectively deciding enough and refusing to extend even if TM made the request.
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Feb 13, 2019 20:07:19 GMT
This article is not entirely correct and is somewhat selective. 'If' we were to leave with a no deal and subsequently refuse to pay the £39 billion the only option the EU would have is to pursue it through the ECJ, which they have statute to do given the legal text of various treaties. However if the UK leave they would no longer be under the ECJ's jurisdiction anyway and the hearing would rely solely on the goodwill of the UK representative to acknowledge and attend the hearing. If the UK say no there is nothing the EU can legally do. It's the equivalent of trying to extradite a criminal out of a country without an extradition treaty, the country might play ball if they feel like it but they don't have to.
|
|