Opening gambits in EU / UK exit negotiations;

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

you've flooded this thread with "facts and figures" and you've been proven wrong. would you like me to start reposting your "facts and figure" from the last two years?

Arm chair anti-Brexit warrior.

And a delusional one at that lmao.

[Unusual Tournament]

On 4/1/2017 at 6:41 AM, stevewinn said:

The British Media is terrible in reporting events, who needs enemies eh, you'd think by their reporting the EU is in a position to call the shots. - On the point of the EU demanding €50 to €60 Billion up front is very telling, they'd rather talk money than secure guarantees of EU citizens legal status in the UK and vice-versa for UK citizens.

What i encourage everyone to do, is this, every single position that's put to the UK Government by the EU turn it on its head and ask it of the EU, for instance the EU says the UK will have to pay €50 to €60 Billion. - Well how much will the EU have to pay the UK, after all its a two way street, the EU as commitments to all members and as such we are still a member that includes commitments to the UK. if we take the UK's share of EU assets, in property, rebates and budget receipts. that figure stands at €8.1Billion. but if we re-evaluate that figure to todays market value that figure stands at around €17.7Billion, If we also factor in our 16% share in the European Investment Bank €10.2 Billion that figure quickly rises to €27.9Billion, that's €27.9Billion the EU owes us, people will say that's far short of the €50-€60 Billion the EU is demanding from us, and they'd be right, but what we have to remember the EU's demand as no basis in law  independent of the treaties.

- The House of Lords EU Financial affairs committee report is telling. - it states

"A demand of €60 billion is being currently attributed to the EU Commission, but we find that it is possible to arrive a wide range of figures for any possible EU claim. However, it should be noted that the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 also provides for a 'guillotine' after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached. Although there are competing interpretations, legal evidence suggests that if agreement is not reached, all EU law will cease to apply, and the UK would not have an obligation to make any financial contribution at all"

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/12502.htm

in essence, The EU is negotiating with the worlds Fifth largest economy, its single biggest trade market and a member which currently contributes 12% of the EU's budget. the UK in 2017 will be the second largest Net contributor in absolute terms.

of the 27 remaining members just 11 are net contributors and the remaining 16 net recipients, either the 11 contribute more money to fill the black hole or the 16 accept cuts. but its more serious when you consider only 4 are "big net contributors"

 

Im all for Brexit without a deal. We'll have had two years nine months to prepare. sure it will hurt us, but we'd be safe in the knowledge it will hurt the EU worse. the Euro cannot survive another financial crisis, faced with that prospect sensible heads on the continent will prevail, and a deal will be done - after all they have a History of capitulation. 

Lets start to indulge...

[stevewinn]

1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

Arm chair anti-Brexit warrior.

And a delusional one at that lmao.

He's accused me of this before. Always after a post which delivers a hammer blow, and as good as Google is he can't search/ find it. He's interested in the topic/brexit but he's not exactly how do we say, erm, on the ball when it comes to the basics. Like when he thought both the UK and Ireland where in schengen. Or when I was quoting dr Liam fox's official Govt department twitter he's a brexiteer claimed old captain risky so the tweet was lies the information was wrong. That was until I pointed out Dr fox is the trade secretary,  old Risky said ah, but I got my information from the ONS. I then pointed out Dr fox's information was from the same ONS report. Silence followed. 

The trick is to watch evidence to select committees in Parliament. It takes time, but knowledge is gained. And in my past dealing with Captain Risky he doesn't want to invest time. No, turn computer on, Google brexit and go from there. 

 

[stevewinn]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Lets start to indulge...

What's exactly wrong. Nothing wrong with that statement. 

Where's the wrong facts and figures you alluded to? 

 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

What's exactly wrong. Nothing wrong with that statement. 

Where's the wrong facts and figures you alluded to? 

Haha... you're a comedian now. lets start from the beginning... is the EU calling the shots? 

[stevewinn]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Haha... you're a comedian now. lets start from the beginning... is the EU calling the shots? 

No

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

No

[stevewinn]

7 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I thought you was going to prove me wrong, facts and figures you said? Your not living up to your own billing. 

Keep posting my quotes. Good reminder. I like the way you selected my post and highlighted, only for the same post to answer the questions and even a link. And not only that you've edited the original post. At least quote in full. 

You haven't thought this through have you. 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by stevewinn

[Unusual Tournament]

On 4/7/2017 at 6:02 AM, stevewinn said:

 

These negotiations haven't even started in earnest yet, I've heard some say the EU is dictating the policy, - i simply smile, as the EU is making all the mistakes early on. 722 Days to go and the EU have painted themselves into a corner. - expert negotiators they said, 

 

 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

On 4/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, stevewinn said:

The EU seems to think after Brexit they'll retain some form of authority over the UK; be it EU Laws or EU citizens living under EU rights while resident in the UK. I don't think they fully understand what Brexit actually means.

The EU true to form is entering talks unprepared hence the last minute demands and proposals being threw into the official meetings/talks, remember last time they where all sat around the table the next minute the door comes flying open and it was Spain with Gibraltar, and the same as happened again this time with France, lock the bloody door. amateurs.

 

[stevewinn]

If your going to quote quote in full better still directly link. 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

If your going to quote quote in full better still directly link. 

Top right hand corner there is an arrow. click on it and it will take you there. 

[stevewinn]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Top right hand corner there is an arrow. click on it and it will take you there. 

I know that's why I know your editing the original post. Others may not. 

When are you going to post something that proves me wrong?

Facts and figures you said. 

 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

I know that's why I know your editing the original post. Others may not. 

When are you going to post something that proves me wrong?

Facts and figures you said. 

listen mate. bullchit i can accept but don't lie. you painted yourself in a corner with your bullchit. feel free to bring up the original and prove that i tampered with your quote its easier enough to do. accuse me again of tampering with your quote and i will re-post your quote and prove you a liar.

[Unusual Tournament]

On 4/7/2017 at 6:02 AM, stevewinn said:

The Red lines by the EU as outlined by Guy Verhofstadt, but before i go on, - I seen the speech by Verhofstadt in the EU Parliament, its almost beyond belief, he stated Britain will one day, once again join the EU and blames our leaving on infighting within the Tory party. - He like many in the EU fail to understand the British people where given the opportunity to Vote and they Voted Leave.

But anyway; I've been reading the red lines put by the EU, as a precursor to the negotiations they've painted themselves into a corner and leaves the EU with limited room to manoeuvre, If the EU stick to their red lines then the Republic of Ireland will be the next country to leave the EU. firstly on the grounds of open borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic. everyone thinks a hard border will exist between the two, but this is not going to happen. its not in the interest of Rep Ireland, - If a hard border exists it will be enforced by the Republic not at the shared UK-Ireland border but at the borders of the EU.

If no EU-UK trade deal is forthcoming and the EU's external tariff is imposed on the UK then the Republic of Ireland's economy soon enters into recession, and will need bailing out yet again by the EU, crisis two for both the EU and Euro currency. The Republic of Ireland will be forced to seek treaty reform or leave the EU for self interest. - just like Rep of Ireland had to join the EEC because the UK did, they'll have to leave for the same reasons. for the EU to lose one country is one thing, to lose two is a disaster.

No EU-UK deal means the UK has no legal obligations to pay the EU any "divorce" bill, though it will be contested by the EU. - The EU cannot afford to have a free, low tax economy off its northern shore, its why one of the EU red lines demands the UK adheres to "the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, fair competition"  Another red line seeks to prevent the UK becoming a low cost energy economy, by having the UK continuing to adhere to the  "Union's legislation and policies, in, among others, the field of the environment, climate change" Its clear the EU fears the options available to the UK.

On trade the EU is hamstrung by WTO and most favoured nation status, - that means if the EU imposes a tariff rate on a good or service from a non-EU trading partner, it then has to offer the same equal trade advantages to other parties (read UK) that limits the EU's ability to artificially charge the UK higher tariff rates. - seeing how the EU's external tariff on 90% of British exports to the EU would be in the bracket of between 0% to 6%, the UK could simply drop its corporation rate by 6%. negating any costs incurred. (the current UK corporate tax rate 19% 2017) The "nuclear option" with no EU deal would be to drop that rate by either 6% or 9% down to 10%. a level unable to be matched by the EU on the scale required. 

These negotiations haven't even started in earnest yet, I've heard some say the EU is dictating the policy, - i simply smile, as the EU is making all the mistakes early on. 722 Days to go and the EU have painted themselves into a corner. - expert negotiators they said, 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Captain Risky

[stevewinn]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

listen mate. bullchit i can accept but don't lie. you painted yourself in a corner with your bullchit. feel free to bring up the original and prove that i tampered with your quote its easier enough to do. accuse me again of tampering with your quote and i will re-post your quote and prove you a liar.

You post THIS. And then contradict yourself proving my point by then posting one of my quotes in full. Which you previously posted edited in your previous post #5089 

Your making a fool of yourself. All by yourself. 

 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

You post THIS. And then contradict yourself proving my point by then posting one of my quotes in full. Which you previously posted edited in your previous post #5089 

Your making a fool of yourself. All by yourself. 

easily fixed, steve. why don't you repost your original post and lets see who is lying. 

[stevewinn]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

easily fixed, steve. why don't you repost your original post and lets see who is lying. 

You've done it for me. First you edited my post. In your post #5089 Then posted it in full #5095. (which you've now bolded) 

Not doing a good job here. Indulged I am. Making a right fool of yourself. Carry on. 

 

[stevewinn]

Ireland alarmed by UK’s food tariff plans in no-deal Brexit

Dublin has discussed with Brussels the assistance it would need

Ireland has responded with alarm to UK plans for tariffs and quotas on agri-food imports in a no-deal Brexit, as worries grow about the potentially grave impact on the country’s annual €4.5bn food and drink sales to Britain. 

 

Leo Varadkar’s government is facing demands to seek emergency aid from Brussels after Michael Gove, UK environment secretary, said reports that Britain would operate a zero-tariff regime in a no-deal were “not accurate”. 

“A no-deal Brexit, if that’s the outcome . . . is going to have grave consequences to the broader food market here in Ireland,” he said. 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by stevewinn

[L.A.T.1961]

The EU have done what they usually do when in a bind and ignore or change the rules. 

This time it is subsidies to farmers. 

"amid concerns about Brexit, new EU rules will increase the maximum amount that member states can use to support farmers in crisis without the need for prior approval from the European Commission.

In some cases, agriculture commissioner Phil Hogan will say, State aid provided to farmers can be increased by as much as 66%, rising from €15,000 to €20,000 and even up to €25,000."

Although they do not say how member states are to find the extra money.

Macron is also calling for more money to be provided for the C.A.P. 

I would think once French farmers join the yellow jackets we shall be able to see the fires burning in Paris from the Home counties. 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/europe-raises-cap-on-grants-as-government-prepares-for-brexit-906291.html

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-agriculture-needs-more-protectionism-says-macron-salon-de-lagriculture/

 

 

[stevewinn]

33 days till Brexit.

(or will it be 33 days till a betrayal to be unleashed upon the British people)

interesting times either way.

 

[stevewinn]

The trouble is and what we need to remember is the govt has never had any intention of leaving. May has been thoroughly dishonest to force our country to remain in the EU by another treaty with a different name with key elements under different badges. Hammond always claimed there would only be modest changes.

It was clear in December 2017 she was using the Irish backstop as a ploy. Sammi Wilson makes that clear this week when speaking about ROI legislation being brought in for no deal. He is spot on.

July 2018 saw her underhand dishonest behaviour at a Chequers. Her behaviour alone should have seen her ousted. Her servitude plan in November withdrawn for legal changes brought back without any changes and lost historic vote.

May’s government found in contempt when trying to hide legal opinion about the backstop that would Lock UK in the EU forever! This was her plan that she was trying to get through.

Single market and customs union had name changes but still apply. May was going to give away N.Ireland when she claimed no PM would ever do it! Even though May lost the vote.

May always slapped down ministers for promoting leaving the EU which was govt policy, such as evidenced by steve baker MP by but never uttered a word for inappropriate remain claims and comments,against govts policy. Including Hammond calling seventeen and half million people extremist. Not a coincidence after nearly three years.

Why has Rudd, Greg Clarke and Gauke not been sacked? All have appalling records. Rudd the worst. She only has a majority of a few hundred. Their associations need to oust them and other fanatic EU remainers who will not accept representative democracy.

No right minded person would delay leaving or take no deal off the table because there would be no incentive for the EU to make a deal. It would show categorically there is not a will to leave the EU.

As the piece i read online today in the Sunday Telegraph:

“Because if we say we will never, ever leave without a deal, the EU would know, for certain, that they can stop Brexit in its tracks simply by refusing to agree a deal with us. Or, if they’re feeling subtle, by offering a bad deal they know Parliament will turn down. Either way, they’d know we’d blink. Faced with those options, we couldn’t take either of them. We would have no choice. We’d have to go cap in hand and beg the EU to delay the day we leave.”

Which is, of course, precisely what a majority of MPs really want, they want to give the EU the power to hold us prisoner forever.

this is what Brexit as turned into. a fight for Democracy and fight the people will.

[L.A.T.1961]

21 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

 

Which is, of course, precisely what a majority of MPs really want, they want to give the EU the power to hold us prisoner forever.

this is what Brexit as turned into. a fight for Democracy and fight the people will.

This has been my opinion for a while, May engineered a trap for the UK but it was unfortunately discovered.

If we sign an unmodified brexit deal then the inevitable outcome will be a very close final arrangement, so close it will be easy for Brussels to suggest special considerations can be made for UK, and usual rules waived, to become a fast- tracked EU member again.   this would be the ideal long game for May and like minded 'remainers'. 

[stevewinn]

 

Quote

 

Why the Withdrawal Agreement is bad for the UK

by John Redwood MP.

I have been asked to spell out more details on the features of the WA other than the Irish backstop which make it a bad deal.

The first point is it contradicts the Conservative Manifesto and 2017 government policy of negotiating the Withdrawal issues and the future partnership together. You must stick to this to get leverage from concessions made on Withdrawal to benefits in the future partnership. Nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed. It is why we have got a bad Withdrawal Agreement, and are being set up to get a bad future partnership as well.

The second is the provision to pay them very large sums of money, stretching for many years into the future. No sensible person would sign an agreement which allows one side to send bill after bill for years after we have left, claiming we owe them money under many general heads set out in the Withdrawal Agreement. The Treasury estimate of £39bn is likely to be far too low. Some of the future liabilities stretch forward a hundred years, relating to payments to people not yet born who might come here before the end of the transition period. Paying to belong until 2020 opens up more future commitments under the 2019-20 budget, with liabilities until 2028. The settlement on the European Investment Bank is mean to the UK. Every conceivable future liability for the EU is recorded with as much liability as possible attaching to the UK under various clauses.

The third is the institutional architecture for the Agreement. Until we do leave the UK faces the full panoply of existing and additional EU law enforced by the EU’s own court. The UK in transition will have no veto over big new advances in EU controls, and no ability to form qualified minority blocking groups to stop an unfavourable law passing under qualified majority provisions. The EU would be at liberty to legislate in ways that harmed our economic interests and helped theirs and we would have to comply. We would even not be able to prevent the imposition of new taxes on us.

Disputes over the money or over the laws fall to be resolved by a joint committee. In the event of there being no resolution, an independent Arbitration panel decides the matter. However, if at issue is the interpretation of EU law – which is likely in most cases – that is settled by the European Court of Justice who instruct the Arbitration Panel what to say! Who ever thought the UK should accept such a one sided arrangement?

The fourth is the State Aids provisions and applicability of Competition law. This will give the EU the right to authorise state aids to attract business away from the UK, with the right to block us doing the same back.

The fifth is the continuing influence the EU will have over our welfare and benefits system.

There are many other features of this Agreement which are one sided, as it is a thorough piece of work by the EU determined to take as much of our money as possible for as long as possible, and keen to keep as much legal control over us as possible.

The Agreement does not even live up to its name and billing. It is meant to just be about the past and so called withdrawal costs and issues, yet a big chunk of it including the Irish backstop, protected trade names and other issues is about the future trading arrangements and partnership. The UK negotiators should have pointed this out and insisted on dealing with all the future issues at the same time, as the government promised to do in 2016-17.

 

 

[godnodog]

Just go for a no deal exit, I am tired of this.