Honour our commitments on leaving the EU ? Sod off...

[transam]

They didn't vote it down because they feared a populace whipped up by the media. The referendum will be one of Camerons legacies like the mess that will be Hinkley C.

nonsense

 

[transam]

They didn't vote it down because they feared a populace whipped up by the media. The referendum will be one of Camerons legacies like the mess that will be Hinkley C.

your lack of under standing on how democracy works is staggering

 

[SirGalahad]

your lack of under standing on how democracy works is staggering

You get your constitutional advice from the DM?

 

[Notch7]

no, Theresa offered to pay an amount for two years. It was not a "divorce settlement" it was an offer to pay for access to the Single Market after resigning from the EU.

How did she calculate it? Not disclosed.

We established over two years ago that there were only four options on offer. The Quitters would never say which one they were voting for, because they had a fantasy of getting all the benefits of membership without being paid-up members and conforming to the rules of membership. This is an option that is not on offer, has never been on offer, and the EU has told UK so repeatedly.

I don't really think that even the Brexit campaigners ever actually believed in it. Like the "£350million a week" lie, it was just a story to get the gullible voting.

no, Theresa offered to pay an amount for two years. It was not a "divorce settlement" it was an offer to pay for access to the Single Market after resigning from the EU.

How did she calculate it? Not disclosed.

We established over two years ago that there were only four options on offer. The Quitters would never say which one they were voting for, because they had a fantasy of getting all the benefits of membership without being paid-up members and conforming to the rules of membership. This is an option that is not on offer, has never been on offer, and the EU has told UK so repeatedly.

I don't really think that even the Brexit campaigners ever actually believed in it. Like the "£350million a week" lie, it was just a story to get the gullible voting.

Youve missed my point.

But hey, it gave you yet another chance to rant on about £350 million again, and again, and again, and again

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

mentally retarded is not the same as being stupid

"Definition of mental retardation
:subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is usually present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment "
Yes, that figures!

although u discriminate against them
JD discriminates against the dis abled ??? may be ???

Another of your ridiculous opinions?

 

[Notch7]

"Definition of mental retardation
:subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is usually present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment "
Yes, that figures!



Another of your ridiculous opinions?

I notice you didnt include a dictionary definition of stupid to show the comparison in meaning, which means your post doesnt prove the point you are trying to make.

 

[motorbiking]

yep that figure of 90 billion (gross) was mentioned on the radio again this morning ?

truer figure they reckon is 40 billion net ?? dunno what the significance of a net & gross figure is in this context , can any one explain it to me ?

As I understand it the gross/Net thing is Net of money that would come back to the UK. So for example the EU pay farmers via the CAP.

I must admit I'm getting fed up with all the analogies - Divorce, buying a round of drinks etc.

 

[Notch7]

I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.

It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. I realise there is a difference between the payment to cover our obligations and a future subscription to pay to maintain some form of trade agreement but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27

Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.

It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. I realise there is a difference between the payment to cover our obligations and a future subscription to pay to maintain some form of trade agreement but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27

Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?

A future arrangement is not dependent on the 'divorce' and vise-versa.
Only UK is trying to make the two separate processes inter-dependent.
As noseall has said many time, UK could simply walk away without paying, and no future arrangement ever would be possible.
Whether the EU would have any redress via UN, etc is debatable.
Of course, to simply walk away means hard border in Ireland, EU and UK citizens without rights in other countries, WTO tariffs, etc.

 

[SirGalahad]

I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.

It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. I realise there is a difference between the payment to cover our obligations and a future subscription to pay to maintain some form of trade agreement but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27

Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?

Because no one really knows and neither party wants to show compromise as they both know that it will weaken both parties. It seems the sensible people have left.

The UK should have remained within the EU and the EU should have created more stringent policies on movement of people - sure the UK didnt implement the policies which they could but they do need some tweaking. Yes tweaking - you cannot get around the fact we need a form of controlled immigration.

Both parties need their heads banged together.

 

[JohnD]

£350 million again, and again, and again, and again

yes indeed, the Quitters did spread that lie as widely as they could, and hammered it home even though they knew it was untrue. Again, and again, and again, and again.

Brexit 350 Million Lie

• JohnD
• 28 Jun 2016

GoveNHS

• JohnD
• 1 Jul 2016

Buffoon Boris still likes to drag it out.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Why is the government (David Davis) refusing to publish 50 studies on the effects of Brexit on industry:

David Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact
Lawyers say they will issue judicial review proceedings if Brexit secretary fails to release 50 studies of effect on industry

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...l-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impact
It appears that this Conservative government is withholding important information for our MPs to make informed decisions.

This will be the third time that this government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, before the courts.

 

[motorbiking]

I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.

It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. I realise there is a difference between the payment to cover our obligations and a future subscription to pay to maintain some form of trade agreement but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27

Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - is a common legal doctrine that sets out the rules for a negotiation. It means that work can be done to progress agreement without prejudicing other discussions. It also gives both parties the ability to reflect holistically and not be held to earlier agreement with a promise of flexibility further down the line, which doesn't come. This isn't really the issue here, its a very workable approach. The issue is the "divorce before trade" approach which is inflexible.

In terms of stance:
- if they accept we owe nothing then we are "buying" a trade deal, whereas if we agree we are paying our debts, then they are gifting us a trade deal. Its just about convincing the other that your position is fair and reasonable.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

In terms of stance:
- if they accept we owe nothing then we are "buying" a trade deal, whereas if we agree we are paying our debts, then they are gifting us a trade deal. Its just about convincing the other that your position is fair and reasonable.

I disagree. If we pay our debts, we may be able to then buy a trade deal. (It will not come free or cheap, unless we can agree some terms on a tit for tat basis, which is highly unlikely). The EU have already said we cannot pick and choose the best bits of membership without paying for it.
If we do not pay our debts, I would assume a trade deal is completely off the cards.

 

[transam]

You get your constitutional advice from the DM?

who is the DM ??? is it something to do with way har bee