BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

spatt77

surrey_commuter said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

In the telegraph tomorrow



No deal now likeliest option.

Appalling.

yeah, we`ll have to trade like we do with the rest of the world! oh , how will we cope! we`re doomed!;)

Genuine question - why are you not interested in finding out the implications of this?

Im actually interested on how many times i have to tell you" ITS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY"!

But you did not write "who cares? you can not put a price on sovereignty"

I took your answer to be sarcastic "how will we cope, we're doomed" which I took to mean that you see little or no downside.

There may be some downsides which Im willing to accept! I do not think you believe that there can be any upside of Brexit which is a narrow way of thinking!

surrey_commuter

coopster_the_1st said:

Anyone seen the breakdown of yearly country payments for the 2021-2027 EU budget?

I've only seen a recent pre-agreement figure of 1.075% of 2018 GDP.

That would have put the figure on the side of the bus at £590m a week.

We're gonna need a bigger bus!

I can not work out if you do not know the size of the UK economy, how many billions there are in a trillion or how many weeks there are in a year.

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Anyone seen the breakdown of yearly country payments for the 2021-2027 EU budget?

I've only seen a recent pre-agreement figure of 1.075% of 2018 GDP.

That would have put the figure on the side of the bus at £590m a week.

We're gonna need a bigger bus!

I can not work out if you do not know the size of the UK economy, how many billions there are in a trillion or how many weeks there are in a year.

GDP was listed in US dollars that I missed.

Corrected figure is £443m a week (£23bn a year)

Still would have needed a bigger bus

Thank goodness we voted to leave

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

ballysmate

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

there were enough other waverers who would have stood firm with us. I think we would have vetoed or sold the other waverers out by making it € zone only

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

Why is this a bad thing?

The north enjoys various privileges that are structural because of the south so it seems only fair to repay that?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

Why is this a bad thing?

The north enjoys various privileges that are structural because of the south so it seems only fair to repay that?

Did you not have a mate at Uni who had maxed their credit card after two weeks then had it paid off by Daddy, then by the end of term had maxed it again?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

We are no longer members, so entirely academic. If they want to move towards full fiscal union, good luck to them. A United States of Europe would be perfect for all the Churchill fan boys 😏

As it happens two Balkan states have recently joined the ERM, so who knows, maybe they'll be one up on the deal before long.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

Why is this a bad thing?

The north enjoys various privileges that are structural because of the south so it seems only fair to repay that?

Did you not have a mate at Uni who had maxed their credit card after two weeks then had it paid off by Daddy, then by the end of term had maxed it again?

If you are attending all the house parties he is throwing, only fair to chip in.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

Why is this a bad thing?

The north enjoys various privileges that are structural because of the south so it seems only fair to repay that?

I'm not sure German taxpayers generally see it like that or agree with that.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

We are no longer members, so entirely academic. If they want to move towards full fiscal union, good luck to them. A United States of Europe would be perfect for all the Churchill fan boys 😏

As it happens two Balkan states have recently joined the ERM, so who knows, maybe they'll be one up on the deal before long.

I know we are no longer members. I highlighted the salient piece from Stevo's post

other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate

Rick always chirps up that an EU superstate is not the ultimate aim and we could have prevented this by using our veto.
Just pointing out that a veto is only of use if people are prepared to use it. Something that is not guaranteed.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

Why is this a bad thing?

The north enjoys various privileges that are structural because of the south so it seems only fair to repay that?

I'm not sure German taxpayers generally see it like that or agree with that.

They should.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

We are no longer members, so entirely academic. If they want to move towards full fiscal union, good luck to them. A United States of Europe would be perfect for all the Churchill fan boys 😏

As it happens two Balkan states have recently joined the ERM, so who knows, maybe they'll be one up on the deal before long.

I know we are no longer members. I highlighted the salient piece from Stevo's post

other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate

Rick always chirps up that an EU superstate is not the ultimate aim and we could have prevented this by using our veto.
Just pointing out that a veto is only of use if people are prepared to use it. Something that is not guaranteed.

Ultimate aim for who exactly?

pangolin

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

We are no longer members, so entirely academic. If they want to move towards full fiscal union, good luck to them. A United States of Europe would be perfect for all the Churchill fan boys 😏

As it happens two Balkan states have recently joined the ERM, so who knows, maybe they'll be one up on the deal before long.

I know we are no longer members. I highlighted the salient piece from Stevo's post

other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate

Rick always chirps up that an EU superstate is not the ultimate aim and we could have prevented this by using our veto.
Just pointing out that a veto is only of use if people are prepared to use it. Something that is not guaranteed.

What an odd argument. It's entirely academic as has been said but if our elected PM decided not to use a veto then that's on us for electing that PM. Not the big scary EU.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

Why is this a bad thing?

The north enjoys various privileges that are structural because of the south so it seems only fair to repay that?

I'm not sure German taxpayers generally see it like that or agree with that.

They should.

Surely millions of Germans can't be wrong? Suggest you go and re-educate them pronto.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

It is an EU special that. The idea that [German] tax payers were giving money to [Italian] tax payers would have been hard sell, but this way, the rest of world will generously help out without any retaliatory measures.

The EU is also crossing a line by doing this - as however they try to package it, there is debt mutualisation in this package in the form of grants to the hardest hit nations funded by the borrowing of other countries. Some may see this as good, other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to cry that it would not happen because we have a veto.
The problem being though that a veto is of no use if an incumbent Europhile PM decides not to use it.

We are no longer members, so entirely academic. If they want to move towards full fiscal union, good luck to them. A United States of Europe would be perfect for all the Churchill fan boys 😏

As it happens two Balkan states have recently joined the ERM, so who knows, maybe they'll be one up on the deal before long.

I know we are no longer members. I highlighted the salient piece from Stevo's post

other will see it as the slippery slope to full fiscal transfers and the EU Superstate

Rick always chirps up that an EU superstate is not the ultimate aim and we could have prevented this by using our veto.
Just pointing out that a veto is only of use if people are prepared to use it. Something that is not guaranteed.

What an odd argument. It's entirely academic as has been said but if our elected PM decided not to use a veto then that's on us for electing that PM. Not the big scary EU.

Where does he say that not using the veto is the EUs fault?

Although that said, your argument is entirely academic as we've already left the EU.

rjsterry

Frost really enjoying his job.

https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1286301781220368387?s=19

Stevo_666

Here's a suggestion on how to break the deadlock and make some progress with a trade deal:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/25/eu-wants-deal-solution-simple-fire-michel-barnier/

Simple and has some merits I think?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

Here's a suggestion on how to break the deadlock and make some progress with a trade deal:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/07/25/eu-wants-deal-solution-simple-fire-michel-barnier/

Simple and has some merits I think?

Can only read the first para so can not confirm if tongue in cheek or they really don’t understand Barnier is the messenger.

Serious question - do you think Cummings wants a deal?

Stevo_666

Here's the text.

Part 1
"The clock is ticking down. The ports are being prepared, customs officials are being hired on both sides of the English Channel, and companies are being warned to make sure they have new systems in place. After yet another tense round of negotiations, this week it looked more likely than ever the UK would end its transition agreement with the EU without a trade deal. The two sides remain as far apart as ever on fishing, and a level playing field on regulations and state aid. After months of talks, there is no sign of positions shifting.

The EU keeps saying it genuinely wants a deal. But if that is true, there is a simple solution. It should fire Michel Barnier, its chief negotiator. Over three years, the Frenchman has been a complete failure. High-handed, patronising and provocative, he never seems to have grasped that the job of a negotiator is to find a compromise, not simply antagonise the other side.

A deal is there to be done. But Barnier himself has turned into the main obstacle. Replace him and the talks could get off to a fresh start–and still succeed before Christmas. After Britain left the EU, it was, to put it mildly, a slight surprise that Barnier was appointed to lead the trade negotiations.

After all, he had hardly been a great success negotiating the withdrawal agreement. He massively overplayed his hand, making a series of demands so outrageous that no self-respecting country could ever accept them.

Even though former prime minister Theresa May would take almost any terms, he pushed so far that he provoked a rebellion in the Conservative Party, secured a worse deal and then the election of a government committed to Brexit with a thumping majority. A good outcome for the EU? Not really.

As trade negotiator, he has just pressed the repeat button. The UK gets lectures on state aid from an EU which has just waved through – to take only one example – a massive bailout of the German airline Lufthansa that will involve massive subsidies and protection from takeovers."

Cummings isn't our negotiator so not sure why you're asking about him?

Stevo_666

Part 2

"And we are subjected to endless bizarre, hard-to-follow speeches about how our proximity means we can’t possibly trade on the same terms as Canada or Japan – when, to any neutral observer, the complete opposite would seem to be true.

Hardcore Remainers love to describe Barnier as a “master negotiator” with a “grasp of detail” that “runs rings” around the “amateurish” British. The immense size of the EU market meant we would have to accept pretty much whatever we were offered. But negotiating isn’t just about making demands, threatening retaliation and goading the other side. The actual objective is to find a deal. Often, that will mean calming ruffled feelings, dialling down the rhetoric and tracking down the common ground, the compromises, and the concessions that can be made.

Measured by that standard, Barnier has been completely hopeless. The result? Even though a deal is clearly in the interests of both sides, right now it looks as if it will be impossible.

The UK has changed its team plenty of times already. Since this process began, we have been through two prime ministers, three Brexit secretaries (and four if you count the abolition of the department) and a couple of chief negotiators. Through it all, Barnier just sails on and on, failing to reach an amicable agreement in round after round of talks.

If the British Government wasn’t refusing his demands for an extension, he’d probably be there in 2030, still lecturing everyone, still priding himself on his fantastic negotiating skills and still without an agreement. It would be easy to break out of that cycle. Fire Barnier, and appoint a replacement. That would have two big advantages. First, it would give the talks a fresh start, and send a powerful signal that the dialogue was about to change, and on the EU as well as the British side of the table. The tone would immediately be different.

Next, it would allow both sides some wriggle room. A new EU negotiator could easily argue he or she had reviewed the mandate and come up with a slightly different set of compromises, while the British could likewise trim their demands and get away with it politically. For breaking a deadlock, some fresh faces often make all the difference. And of course, if we are being honest, it would help if the EU’s chief negotiator wasn’t French (I mean, let’s face it, we irritate them and they sure irritate us sometimes).

A Swedish, Dutch or Finnish chief negotiator could probably get an amicable deal wrapped up in no time.

A deal is massively in the interests of both sides. The EU runs a £72bn trade surplus with Britain. Sure, it can live without that, but tariffs and customs checks will still hurt, and even more so at a time when Covid-19 has already created the worst economic downturn in almost a century. And the EU may not be as important a market as Project Fear sometimes argued, but it still accounts for 43pc of our exports.

We could manage on World Trade Organisation terms, but we would certainly be better off without the disruption that would cause.

Companies, tourists and even pets will all face extra hassle without an agreement. But right now, Barnier himself is the main obstacle to achieving that. Over three years, he has turned himself into part of the problem, not part of the solution. Of course, this is the EU. It doesn’t ever sack people for failing (because, heck, once you started where would you stop?). But, in truth, Barnier should have been fired a long time ago and replaced by someone who knew how to reach a deal – and without him that could still be achievable."

rjsterry

Looks like a way to fill columns and give the readers what they want to see, because it is obviously Never. Going. To. Happen.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Looks like a way to fill columns and give the readers what they want to see, because it is obviously Never. Going. To. Happen.

Agree he won't be sacked. As mentioned in the article:
"Of course, this is the EU. It doesn’t ever sack people for failing (because, heck, once you started where would you stop?)"

surrey_commuter

Still not sure it is a serious article as that would pre suppose the author does not realise that the EU position is agreed by all member states which means their front man has no flexibility.

My reference to Cummings not trying for a deal is that he is bright enough to understand the EU’s position and as such has already made his mind up that he prefers no deal. In this theory the last six months had been about laying the groundwork for the inevitable blame game

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

Still not sure it is a serious article as that would pre suppose the author does not realise that the EU position is agreed by all member states which means their front man has no flexibility.

My reference to Cummings not trying for a deal is that he is bright enough to understand the EU’s position and as such has already made his mind up that he prefers no deal. In this theory the last six months had been about laying the groundwork for the inevitable blame game

I read most Telegraph EU articles assuming that's what the agenda is. Dem furriners...

tailwindhome

It's an odd article.

Simultaneously claiming Barnier "never seems to have grasped that the job of a negotiator is to find a compromise" but yet suggesting evidence of his failure as a negotiator in that he "secured a worse deal and then the election of a government committed to Brexit with a thumping majority. A good outcome for the EU? Not really."

It claims the EU should unlock the process by making a personnel change but then we find out that only personnel changes on the UK side have made any difference.

It claims the "new EU negotiator could easily argue he or she had reviewed the mandate and come up with a slightly different set of compromises" but never suggests for a moment what these may be.

Then it claims that his nationality may indeed be the issue.

It's found its audience.

TheBigBean

On the basis that I said many months ago that appointing Barnier was a mistake, the article must have some merit.

twotoebenny

Hard to believe that's a telegraph article eh... 🙄

Stevo_666

Just because the article comes from a source that some people dislike doesnt mean it can't have a valid point

I think it does, even though (as mentioned above) the EU never sacks anyone for doing a crap job.