Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Don't Kill Bill said:
On the Brexit fee debate.

If I remember it correctly we were told that EU membership costs Britain 8 billion pounds a year net.

We decide to leave and then we are told that we owe 50 billion pounds more.

Doesn't that mean that it was actually costing us more than the stated figure to be a member because that is 6 or seven times the stated annual cost and didn't some people get very upset about lies on some bus or other with regards to how much the EU costs the UK.
Click to expand...

Depends what contracts were signed and what length they were for.
 
Full bodied red said:
Sure the ERU hands out gifts and loans to 3rd World Countries. But what they really need is Traiff Free acess to the EU to sell their products into the EU

And the list of those that do have Tariff Free access ?

Go check yourself - it's pretty small. And it consists of mainly ex-colonies so that the EU has access to those countries' Natural Resources and can ship into those countries all the tools and equipment they need to extract those resources.


OK....Now something similar from yourself instead of the usual EU Apologists insults and sarcasm about straight bananas.
Click to expand...

I have written this in the past and it might help to shine some light on the situation about protectionism.

The free trade policy of the EU:

Many pro-Brexit advocates seem to argue that a common European trade policy is a problem for England. It is true, that the UK can´t negotiate their own FTAs with foreign countries, but I don´t really see the problem.

The EU is actually pretty good at reducing tariff barriers with other countries. It is not perfect, but there are only few countries in the world that are actually better than the EU in this regard. The EU is sometimes seen as fortress towards the rest of the world, but that has little to do with “classic” protectionism. That is almost exclusively down to the very high level of standards and regulation. Now I am a fairly extreme liberal, so I´d agree that the EU is regulating too much stuff. Still, even I acknowledge that any developed country has to set standards and while the EU might overdo it in many ways, it is more of a structural problem and has less to do with the EU. Other developed countries have more or less the same problem.

So if you argue, that leaving the EU allows England to negotiate substantially better trade deals (or substantially different trade deals), you have to hold fairly radical views. Either you are in favor of strong protectionism or you have to fancy the radical reduction of regulation and standards; abolishing most labour standards; abolishing environmental standards; reducing health and risk regulations et.al. Some Tory politicians might fancy such a course (and I personally like at least some of these ideas), but I doubt that most pro-brexit voters would actually support such policy. Just changing tariff barriers will make little to no difference, because they are simply not the biggest barriers anymore (with few exceptions) for imports into the EU.

Furthermore many developing countries close their markets to developed countries. That is actually a big problem, but leaving the EU won´t solve that. To the contrary it will put England in a much weaker position. In comparison: The EU is better in securing access to foreign markets than the USA.
Click to expand...
 
Zarlak said:
No, people got upset mainly because the figure reported wasn't true and because the leave campaign promised that money would go to the NHS only for them to deny ever having said it the day after and saying that it wasn't going to the NHS at all. Also money owed isn't the same as a clearly defined yearly cost.
Click to expand...

:)

In the context of the debate, the cost of something should include all monies that will be expected from you for it. Otherwise, it's not really the full cost is it?

When you are asking people to vote based on your figures and getting very angry about the other sides figures being misleading then you have to laugh about just how squirming, two faced and dishonest that is. To me, it just goes to show how far people will bend their principles.


I guess it doesn't matter, we are where we are and all that.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
:)

In the context of the debate, the cost of something should include all monies that will be expected from you for it. Otherwise, it's not really the full cost is it?

When you are asking people to vote based on your figures and getting very angry about the other sides figures being misleading then you have to laugh about just how squirming, two faced and dishonest that is. To me, it just goes to show how far people will bend their principles.


I guess it doesn't matter, we are where we are and all that.
Click to expand...

That's just moving the goal posts. That wasn't the original claim. For example, if your cost is £10 a week, but you don't pay for 5 weeks and you owe £50 to them, your total cost is still £10 per week. The fact that you owe money doesn't change how much it costs you. That's just one example.
 
The "brexit bill" is based on us having committed to EU budgets that span into the 2020s, so I'm not sure how it's surprising that the amount supposedly owed is several years worth of contributions.
 
The more I read about what the government plans to do the more it dawns to me that the government haven't got a bloody clue what they're doing.
Oh yes, we're going to get back out sovereignty from the unelected bureaucrats of the EU and we're going to open up trade with all these wonderful booming markets from across globe!! Are you really?! Well, how exactly are you going to that? Errr.. well, we don't know yet but it's going to be all custy!!!!
To be quite frank, I've seen more intellect from a turd. They say the devil is in the detail. But they haven't even set out the basics yet!
 
Ubik said:
The "brexit bill" is based on us having committed to EU budgets that span into the 2020s, so I'm not sure how it's surprising that the amount supposedly owed is several years worth of contributions.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about. We don't need to pay a penny and we have a legally watertight case! How do you know? Errr.. my legal team told me so!!!!

I'm sorry, the government is either fooling themselves or fooling the British public!
 
The great thing about democracy is when the other 48% who voted to stay can feck off and that leave campaign sold us a bunch of lies and missinformation!
 
Zarlak said:
That's just moving the goal posts. That wasn't the original claim. For example, if your cost is £10 a week, but you don't pay for 5 weeks and you owe £50 to them, your total cost is still £10 per week. The fact that you owe money doesn't change how much it costs you. That's just one example.
Click to expand...

The debate was how much does the EU cost as a factor in whether we wanted to stay in it or not.

The bar was set at plain speaking and not misleading the public as per the pro-EU criticism of the other side. Otherwise, they can say they were correct about how much we pay while misleading about the true cost.

So 8 billion per year isn't the true cost. Deciding not to mention the 50 to 60 billion the EU says it has spent and wants back from us is pure deception at that point.

Well, it is to me anyway.
 
The EU to the U.K. Government: a relationship with the EU is not like a menu card where you can pick & choose the best bits you like.

The government to the British public: we're going to pick & choose the best bit we like!

...still busy fooling the British public!
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The debate was how much does the EU cost as a factor in whether we wanted to stay in it or not.

The bar was set at plain speaking and not misleading the public as per the pro-EU criticism of the other side. Otherwise, they can say they were correct about how much we pay while misleading about the true cost.

So 8 billion per year isn't the true cost. Deciding not to mention the 50 to 60 billion the EU says it has spent and wants back from us is pure deception at that point.

Well, it is to me anyway.
Click to expand...

Except it's not. That's not how much it costs us to be in the EU so it shouldn't be labelled as such. It costs us £8bn per year to be in the EU. You're changing the goalposts to make it retrospectively look like this was the argument back then and it wasn't. The argument was membership cost. Not membership cost plus other things that aren't membership costs made to look like they are.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
Maybe/hopefully that is what he meant. Still bullshit of course as unemployment will get worse by us leaving. Plus much/most of the rest of his list is a bit bizarre.
Click to expand...
I don't think he is talk about 'Us Leaving' but stupid economic policy that does nothing to promote job creation or curb unemployment. its so fkin obvious if you look at countries in the eu that not everyone is having a great time. Stupid budget surplus targets set have put pay to that.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
On the Brexit fee debate.

If I remember it correctly we were told that EU membership costs Britain 8 billion pounds a year net.

We decide to leave and then we are told that we owe 50 billion pounds more.

Doesn't that mean that it was actually costing us more than the stated figure to be a member because that is 6 or seven times the stated annual cost and didn't some people get very upset about lies on some bus or other with regards to how much the EU costs the UK.
Click to expand...

Annual fee vs compensation on long term project commitments shouldn't be a hard concept to understand.
 
Smores said:
Annual fee vs compensation on long term project commitments shouldn't be a hard concept to understand.
Click to expand...
It's an easy concept to understand, but I'm confused about it as well.

Does the UK have a claim for the EU assets? And I guess also the liabilities?

What are these long term projects that we're funding? Is it really not cheaper to pay them through to fruition?
 
rcoobc said:
It's an easy concept to understand, but I'm confused about it as well.

Does the UK have a claim for the EU assets? And I guess also the liabilities?

What are these long term projects that we're funding? Is it really not cheaper to pay them through to fruition?
Click to expand...

I don't think your really confused as much as missing the finer detail. I wouldn't imagine there's one approach. We ourselves receive a lot of funding back from the EU for projects/research so the idea that no exit fee would exist is a strange perception that the daily mail crowd have.

I think they do understand that to be fair its just the reporting portrays it as a fine.
 
rcoobc said:
It's an easy concept to understand, but I'm confused about it as well.

Does the UK have a claim for the EU assets? And I guess also the liabilities?

What are these long term projects that we're funding? Is it really not cheaper to pay them through to fruition?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the government held a referendum without having a contingency plan for the event that Britain voted to leave. I think a 'complete balls up' is the correct term.
 
Smores said:
I don't think your really confused as much as missing the finer detail. I wouldn't imagine there's one approach. We ourselves receive a lot of funding back from the EU for projects/research so the idea that no exit fee would exist is a strange perception that the daily mail crowd have.

I think they do understand that to be fair its just the reporting portrays it as a fine.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's probably accurate. But how many of these projects would we like to keep paying for and to keep getting the benefits?

If I was PM, I'd keep us in the EU, democracy be damned. Well not exactly, I'd ask to renegotiate something that 66% of the UK are happy with. Lots of European ministers were saying, if it is "out", then renegotiate.
 
rcoobc said:
Yeah that's probably accurate. But how many of these projects would we like to keep paying for and to keep getting the benefits?

If I was PM, I'd keep us in the EU, democracy be damned. Well not exactly, I'd ask to renegotiate something that 66% of the UK are happy with. Lots of European ministers were saying, if it is "out", then renegotiate.
Click to expand...

Missing the point completely. If you're running an organization and you want your members to vote on something you make sure you have negotiated the terms & conditions before you vote on it. What the government have done is amateurish to say the least.
 
:lol: @ the unemployment should be illegal comment.

That's just the kind of absurd rhetoric that the general public of today can get behind.

"If i get elected, I pledge to solve the jobs crisis by making unemployment illegal!"

"Here, here!" cried the masses, oblivious to the fact that they'd spelt it wrong in their heads.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
:lol: @ the unemployment should be illegal comment.

That's just the kind of absurd rhetoric that the general public of today can get behind.

"If i get elected, I pledge to solve the jobs crisis by making unemployment illegal!"

"Here, here!" cried the masses, oblivious to the fact that they'd spelt it wrong in their heads.
Click to expand...

What exactly would you do about it?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You'll never be a politician, they only promise things to get elected, doesn't mean that they will actually do anything once they get elected.
Click to expand...
Well the elected members of the eu passed a motion to tackle it. What have they done? Nothing! You are paying them to not act on important things and discuss the size of fruit. Stop payimg.
 
Ubik said:
Just watching reacting from around Europe on Newsnight - they really don't give a shit about us :lol: They're gonna give us a tough time to say the least.

[No I did not post this ten minutes ago in the wrong thread :angel:]
Click to expand...

:boring: repeat, repeat, repeat....
 
Ubik said:
The "brexit bill" is based on us having committed to EU budgets that span into the 2020s, so I'm not sure how it's surprising that the amount supposedly owed is several years worth of contributions.
Click to expand...

That's not the case, it's an extremely simplistic media based way of looking at it, and not a legal view. You don't mention the UK share of the EU's assets either. Legally we don't owe them, but we will have to pay one way or another for 'free' access to the common market.

It's very weird that the UK financial collapse hasn't happened as predicted in this thread (yes the £ has sunk, but it has been lower whilst in the EU), but the doomsday scenario hasn't played out.
 
Chorley1974 said:
That's not the case, it's an extremely simplistic media based way of looking at it, and not a legal view. You don't mention the UK share of the EU's assets either. Legally we don't owe them, but we will have to pay one way or another for 'free' access to the common market.

It's very weird that the UK financial collapse hasn't happened as predicted in this thread (yes the £ has sunk, but it has been lower whilst in the EU), but the doomsday scenario hasn't played out.
Click to expand...
I was responding to the idea that these were hidden extra fees that we hadn't been told about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.