Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?

[noseall]

you are the kind of person who supports deliberately hampering local jobs to send them abroad just to suit your ideals

Really? Where have I inferred this?
Again, take your time trying to find a link, just like all the others you have squirmed out of.

Perhaps it is because I have given sensible answers to your raving anti EU clap trap and you feel the need to invent more stuff to back it up.

 

[motorbiking]

There is an argument that the EUs bank should not be doing business loans that harm EU citizens.

But the argument might be. The interest payments generated an income for the EU and it's only britain and southampton, and all the transit workers can get jobs in the sunseaker factory down the road.

personally i think they should have higher ethical lending around the principles of EU citizens, first.

maybe the EU bank will lend us money to pay our divorce bill?

 

[noseall]

There is an argument that the EUs bank should not be doing business loans that harm EU citizens.

Go on show us where they have.

Do you think that them loaning to UK businesses deliberately did our businesses harm? Do you think they deliberately set out to harm Ford UK when they gave them a loan? Perhaps we should look at Southampton and figure out why they were such crap producers rather than blame the EIB

 

[noseall]

maybe the EU bank will lend us money to pay our divorce bill?

Maybe their economic advisors are as astounded as anyone as to how dumb you could be to leave the single market and all its benefits. I bet they are pi$$ing themselves.

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

And this is the fault of the EU?
These are economic decisions made by the car manufacturers. I'm sure they will do what is best for their profits.

Indeed it is a decision for the company, however it is the EU who has built the economic environment that protects such inefficient movements and businesses who should take the blame

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

Really? Where have I inferred this?
Again, take your time trying to find a link, just like all the others you have squirmed out of.

Perhaps it is because I have given sensible answers to your raving anti EU clap trap and you feel the need to invent more stuff to back it up.

You may well feel that your opinion is sensible, you may well believe that it is fine to pay any demand for money that the EU may present to us and that we should accept the scraps that they offer us.. not because it is good for the country but because you didn't get your way and like a child throwing a tantrum, just want to lash out at those who have beaten you fair and Square... Diddums..

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Tranny's bra friend is confusing the ECB with the EIB. They are totally different and unconnected.

the EIB Institute was created, with the goal of promoting "European initiatives for the common good" in EU Member States and candidate and potential candidate countries, as well as EFTA nations.

As the "Bank of the European Union", the EIB's mission is to make a difference to the future of Europe and its partners by supporting sound investments which further EU policy goals.
the EIB uses its financing operations to bring about European integration and social cohesion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Investment_Bank

We have been supporting Turkey’s development and integration with the EU since the mid-1960s. More than EUR 25.8 billion has been lent since 2000 and we have stepped up our commitment since accession negotiations began. Loans to Turkey in 2015 alone reached EUR 2.3 billion.

In particular, we have focused on the following areas: support to SMEs, transport, the environment and agriculture projects.

http://www.eib.org/projects/regions/enlargement/turkey/index.htm

Turkey was (and still is) a candidate country for joining the EU.
Therefore any loan was perfectly in line with the EIB policy.
As Noseall has already pointed out, several times, the loan was for new investment in Turkey, not for replacing existing operations anywhere else.
To provide a loan to relocate existing operations would have been in direct contravention to EIB policy.

But I guess facts do not matter sometimes.
If some EU haters have convinced themselves that the loan was a grant, that it was to relocate existing operations, that it was provided by EU, that it was some kind of bribe or backhander, they can then build many multi-layered arguments on incorrect foundations, but all to no avail.

 

[noseall]

it is the EU who has built the economic environment that protects such inefficient movements and businesses who should take the blame

Wrong.
The EU provides the infrastructure that is the single market and all its benefits.

It is up to the manufacturers to decide upon the optimum performance of their companies. They could build their entire plant in the UK if they wish and the EU could do nothing to stop them. They are not forced to locate in various parts of the world or Europe. Also, if they were inefficient then the manufacturers would not do it.

 

[noseall]

you may well believe that it is fine to pay any demand for money that the EU may present to us and that we should accept the scraps that they offer us

Do I? And when did I say this? Feel free to post a link. Take your time.

What I have said is that we should pay what is owed rather than take a 'go whistle' stance that could hamper future trading with our European neighbours.

 

[SirGalahad]

The minimum wage set the rate... Higher paid manual jobs bacame minimum wage work, and jobs that ordinarily weren't worth doing such as jobs in coffe bars also were minimum rate.... It is almost communist

What do you smoke? What do you do as a living as it seems your understanding of wage rates, sticky wages etc is mind boggling.

 

[SirGalahad]

Can it really be efficient to produce a bumper in Eastern Europe, ship it to Crewe, then to Germany , then back to Crewe? People in Crewe could be trained in producing the finished article within a few miles of the RR/ Bentley site, and would ultimately be more efficient than transporting just one part of a car, thousands of miles before it's finally put on a car. Quite honestly, I'm astounded at the way the EU wastes money on such a simple thing as a car bumper. When you look at other things manufactured in a similar way, the EU must be wasting £billions each month... But what the heck, it's keeping Polish lorry drivers in a job . Ahh I see, it's a job creation scheme... Pity the EU forgot about unemployment here in the UK.

(perhaps they base their manufacturing policies on the EU Parliament?? They move from Brussels every month to Strasbourg at a cost of "200 million Euro's per year) Inefficiency in action.

So you are blaming the EU for a COMMERCIAL DECISION MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER ON HOW THEY MANAGE THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN.

I thought all you were pro Market and pro Business and let businesses decide where to locate.

 

[motorbiking]

Do I? And when did I say this? Feel free to post a link. Take your time.

What I have said is that we should pay what is owed rather than take a 'go whistle' stance that could hamper future trading with our European neighbours.

nothing is owed. did you miss that bit? If you think otherwise can you show me the treaty, statutory instrument, legislation or contract?

The concept of the UK settling accounts is not backed up in any law I could find. But i didn't look that hard.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

nothing is owed. did you miss that bit? If you think otherwise can you show me the treaty, statutory instrument, legislation or contract?

The concept of the UK settling accounts is not backed up in any law I could find. But i didn't look that hard.

At the moment, you are correct, nothing is owed.
However when the accounts are finalised the EU will present a bill. It may eventually be a negotiated settlement, but it is coming.
It is pointless to keep saying nothing is owed, just because the bill has not yet arrived.

 

[noseall]

nothing is owed. did you miss that bit? If you think otherwise can you show me the treaty, statutory instrument, legislation or contract?

The concept of the UK settling accounts is not backed up in any law I could find. But i didn't look that hard.

Why do both the UK and the EU think there will be money owing? Both sides agree there will be a sum to be settled, with the amounts yet to be agreed. Or am I missing something?
I haven't seen any news article yet that suggests we will leave the EU without having first 'settled our accounts' as it were.

 

[Roger928]

Maybe their economic advisors are as astounded as anyone as to how dumb you could be to leave the single market and all its benefits

Nothing dumb about it.
Its the only way we will have a chance of keeping the foreign dross out of the country. The eu want to maintain the four freedoms. Well let them.
Only this time they can't foist them all on us.