observer Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 Seems Mr Junker has stated that the UK will have to pay for the privilege of leaving the EU. Does anyone know precisely what such a payment would be for ? At the point of membership ceasing , presumably all benefits and all costs cease ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 It's because the "project" can't survive without our money probably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 There is the paperwork involved in the process which, by the time it has done the rounds of member countries and been signed off, will probably amount to a small rain forest and a few million in transportation fees alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Listening to comments on the news, it would seem such things as pensions and golden handshakes for civil servants and MEPs will have to be negotiated, as our share of the costs of the Brussels gravy train is worked out. But I'm not sure how we can be held liable for any expenditure commitments that become due post-brexit ? And as we know, the EU has never had it's financial accounts signed off by auditors, so they're hardly in a position to be pedantic about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Surely this was all discussed and debated during the referendum and factored into people decisions when they voted, it must have been in the small print? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Naughty Geoffrey!! As well you know the referendum was do we want to stay in or do we want to get out, simple as that. The majority decided leave regardless of any "small print" that the remain side have decided was in place before the vote was taken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 There's nothing "definitive" in the "small print" Geoff; cos I doubt the small print exists. It's all a matter of negotiation now, bluff, double bluff and tit for tat; so let's hope we have some good poker players on our team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 2 hours ago, observer said: There's nothing "definitive" in the "small print" Geoff; cos I doubt the small print exists. It's all a matter of negotiation now, bluff, double bluff and tit for tat; so let's hope we have some good poker players on our team. So this is yet another thing that the campaigners on both sides failed to pick up on, the small print and equally they weren't challenged? Judging by the performances to date we don't have any players of any substance - but I imagine that you Obs would give them a run for their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Well here's the thing Geoff, the remain side were so convinced that there was no chance of us voting leave, they never even considered what to do should the "unthinkable" happen. So now they are scrabbling around desperately for reasons why the result should be considered invalid. If you ask for someone's opinion, you have to respect their answer not reject it because it wasn't the one you expected. You want players of substance Geoff? Sorry you're out of luck, we ran out of competent politicians a while ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 What "small print" is that Geoff, have you read the various Treaties ? The whole thing is the subject of negotiation, and I agree with the PM, that no deal is better than a bad deal. If we take the worse case scenario of a no deal, both sides revert to WTO rules, so the EU will suffer just as much as the UK, as tariffs cut both ways; so German car workers and French farmers won't be happy. The other aspect to this is, that the UK is a single entity, the EU have got 27 competing interests to resolve, and that leaves them open to division, and being played against each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 ASP - the fat lady has sung - OBS so lots of room for manoeuver BUT do we have anybody competent. Maybe 6 jobs Osbourne can make the magic 7 at a price of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 Osborne was the balloon who threatened economic disaster if we dared vote to Leave and the sky hasn't fallen in; so not a good choice at all. If the Germans ditch Angela and vote for the Socialists, we can expect a rough ride, as their new Leader will insist on punishing us. Well they promised to punish us in 1940 and it didn't work, the harder they push, the harder we should push back. At the end of the day, it's like two wrestlers holding each others vital organs, and one whispers to the other - "now we aren't going to hurt each other, are we?" ! For all their bluster, the EU is in a mess, with the Euro zone inflicted austerity and unemployment on the southern States, with Greece in economic intensive care; with the ongoing threat of Turkey off loading more migrants, causing a backlash in the east. Whatever they do to us, we can respond in kind, so they can either have it soft or hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 Seems they want our money to pay for things that we were party to contributing to before Brexit.... but they didn't invite us to the 60th birthday party for the EU? That's a bit harsh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 Well they did say "you can't have your cake and eat it"; but we probably paid for it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 If I remember correctly, one of Project Fears favourite claims was that the security of the UK would be threatened if we left the EU, since we would lose access to all the vital Europol data which we really, really need to keep us safe from those naughty terrorists. Now we're 24 hours into the formal exit process and what a hullabaloo; it seems that we're blackmailing the EU, since the security of Europe will be threatened if Europol loses access to all the vital UK data which it really, really needs to keep them safe from etc, etc. I expect that more truths like this will emerge as reality blows the Remoaner smokescreen of lies away. I can't wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Surely we were members of Europol a long time before we joined the Common market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Fact is, we punch above our weight when it comes to security; we are one of the few that are committed to our share of NATO costs (2% GDP); so perhaps it's about time the Yanks started to charge for their services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 9 hours ago, asperity said: Surely we were members of Europol a long time before we joined the Common market? You're probably thinking of Interpol, and you're correct, we were/are long term members of it, I believe it's the worldwide crime fighting resource. But Europol is the European Unions own in house organisation, run by the EU for the EU, which sort of rules us out. And our funding, expertise and data bases, hence the sour faces in Brussels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 5 hours ago, observer said: Fact is, we punch above our weight when it comes to security; we are one of the few that are committed to our share of NATO costs (2% GDP); so perhaps it's about time the Yanks started to charge for their services. It's rumoured that Trump recently presented Merkel with a bill for the equivalent of £300 Billion, the sum that his administration has calculated Germany has ducked out of by dodging its responsibilities to NATO and for which the US has picked up the tab. I bet he's got a few more bills like that in his pocket ready for visiting European leaders, no wonder none of them likes him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 Right you are John, the old memory playing tricks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted March 30, 2017 Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, asperity said: Right you are John, the old memory playing tricks An easy mistake to make, since Interpol got pushed off into the weeds by the almighty EU version... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2017 ...... which relies heavily on the wider intelligence networks of the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 So the EU are demanding we pay them billions to get out. They are demanding that all agreements are done BEFORE we start trade talks too and also want the rights of EU citizens living here to be all agreed and rubber stamped ..... and yet when we throw an ace into the ring, namely the fact that the EU rely very heavily on our security services and expertise, they cry in unison that that shouldn't be allowed??? Of course it should. Our security services are paid for by OUR taxes and is bugger all to do with the EU. If they want our info to keep them safe then they should bloody well pay for it and make concessions to keep that info flowing. If you negotiate, you negotiate with everything you've got. You don't agree to the other parties terms ad infinitum and then accept a few crumbs back. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.