Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
EU referendum (part 2)
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26  Next  
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:20 pm    Post subject: EU referendum (part 2) Reply with quote

EDIT: Continued from EU referendum --pjp

LolEU
So the UK wanted trade discussions to run in parallel with divorce negotiations. The EU denied this and ordered sequential negotiations.
They also constantly pushed "nothings agreed until alls agreed"

Mays deal included the means to calculate the divorce settlement payment, at march £39Bn ... Now ~£33Bn. Likewise the EU stated they are in violation of article50 (section 184)

Boris has turned around at the G7 summit and said in the event of a noDeal the UK would pay £9Bn... The EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill

Brexit: EU ‘would block trade deal if Britain reneged on bill


So everything isn't agreed yet the EU expects all the money. They would block any trade deal if the UK goes back on its word with the bill. But the completion of the trade deal is needed to agree everything and as the EU stated time and time again "nothings agreed until everything is agreed"

This is a proper catch22 logic here. No trade deal unless money paid but money won't be paid without a trade deal.
Likewise the sum was agreed in May's deal would need to be re-negotiates. The UK already sent an accountant and tore apart the EU stance on all the little payments
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I posted on 2019-Jul-29
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-8356522.html#8356522
ulenrich wrote:
Quote:
But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop.
Boris Johnsons havy loaded argument to hold the 40B Euros back is pure nonsense:
That would be regarded as piracy and punished and would cost the UK more on a monthly/quaterly basis

and below:
ulenrich wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
That 40B was negotiated under May
was in nature purely the kind of an accounting the balance. As british officials witnessed the correctness of the sum in that process every international court will get this self proving evidence. And Europe will not deal anything with the British who don't pay their bill. No chance, no opportunity but a Boris Johnson nothing burger we all have heard many before. His older sister just said about his lying: "But he is polite to everyone"

The conservative constantly lies. But with the good in mind he lies to himself only. Therefore he cannot be argued about it. When reality is crashing at the end he sees himself unjustly surrounded by bad people. This situation he names marxist culture and corruption. His perception is caused by neuronal network poisoning with drugs the conservative takes to prevent psychotic attacks. Which the liberal doesn't fear but seeks: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-8365376.html#8365376
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end


Last edited by ulenrich on Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still fail to see why anyone would think that an agreement under the Lisbon treaty would remain in force after withdrawing from the Lisbon treaty. That is exactly what article 50 does. May's deal was never agreed to by the UK and therefore even the formula by which that amount was agreed on is not in any legally binding document nor was there any agreement made to pay any sum at all.

The EU remains determined not to see the consequences of their own greed. They cannot expect to get everything in the divorce. Now they are setting up for a spectacular fall that is going to hurt everyone who works for a living.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
I posted on 2019-Jul-29
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-8356522.html#8356522
ulenrich wrote:
Quote:
But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop.
Boris Johnsons havy loaded argument to hold the 40B Euros back is pure nonsense:
That would be regarded as piracy and punished and would cost the UK more on a monthly/quaterly basis

and below:
ulenrich wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
That 40B was negotiated under May
was in nature purely the kind of an accounting the balance. As british officials witnessed the correctness of the sum in that process every international court will get this self proving evidence. And Europe will not deal anything with the British who don't pay their bill. No chance, no opportunity but a Boris Johnson nothing burger we all have heard many before. His older sister just said about his lying: "But he is polite to everyone"

The conservative constantly lies. But with the good in mind he lies to himself only. Therefore he cannot be argued about it. When reality is crashing at the end he sees himself unjustly surrounded by bad people. This situation he names marxist culture and corruption. His perception is caused by neuronal network poisoning with drugs the conservative takes to prevent psychotic attacks. Which the liberal doesn't fear but seeks: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-8365376.html#8365376


and it has been posted many a time and rationalised multiple times and you choose to ignore it, like the EU.

"nothing agreed until everything agreed". The EU has stated this. The deal was NOT agreed by parliament, the EU has not even looked at trade, NOTHING about this leave has been agreed ERGO how can this "bill" be agreed let alone paid.

Explain that?

Noone has stated what is due wouldn't be paid, what has been stated is it won't be paid until all aspects are agreed, as has been repeatedly stated.

do you understand? Where is the trade agreement? is there a trade agreement? if there isn't, and that was part of the AGREED proceedings, then agreement has not been concluded ERGO nothing has been agreed as per what the EU says


This is very simple to follow
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
I still fail to see why anyone would think that an agreement under the Lisbon treaty would remain in force after withdrawing from the Lisbon treaty. That is exactly what article 50 does. May's deal was never agreed to by the UK and therefore even the formula by which that amount was agreed on is not in any legally binding document nor was there any agreement made to pay any sum at all.

The EU remains determined not to see the consequences of their own greed. They cannot expect to get everything in the divorce. Now they are setting up for a spectacular fall that is going to hurt everyone who works for a living.


legally speaking it can't :) Art50 clearly states this.

Quote:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of
the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2
, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
unanimously decides to extend this period.

Extensions beside... we have no withdrawal agreement... The withdrawal agreement is meant to include liability coverage and future trade. May's deal ONLY covered liability. The EU clearly had an entry in May's "deal" that they did not meet the conditions of Art 50.
This is an interim deal to finalise a withdrawal agreement and it wasn't accepted, thus section 3 of Art50 is in play

40 horrors of May's deal

Quote:

May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6).

Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)

The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)

The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).

The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))

Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168).

This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)

“UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.

The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.

Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.

The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)

Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)

The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.

The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164).

This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)

The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).

The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)

The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)

All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)

Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)

The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)

Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.

Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.

The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50). The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61). The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)

The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)

We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)

The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)

The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)

Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)

The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).

Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)

The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)

The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)

The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).

The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)

And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.

The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)

The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.”

And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.

And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)



My view on this Interim Deal, May's deal (as remember this isn't a withdraw agreement...) is it was a Hobson's choice. The entire deal stinks. The above ad-lib was from the Spectator and I went through the agreement to cross-reference each statement. Besides some sensationalism, its all there... the entire thing stinks. It bounds the UK to the EU as if it was still in the EU but none of the influence... It would have been a fairer stance to just get a 2year extension if both sides were serious about withdrawal.

The problem is, they were not.
May and here cabinet were strongly for remain , likewise the support bureaucrats didn't really want to leave.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006wj2
Quote:
Nick Robinson reveals that Selmayr made an “extraordinary secret offer” to David Lidington to put Brexit “on ice” for five years to develop a new intra-EU partnership instead. Selmayr then talks about how he floated the idea in a late-night session with UK negotiators: “I think we all agreed in the room but we all are officials and we had to respect the mandate that was given and that was unfortunately to negotiate a divorce.”


Aspects of the EU are still under the impression the UK won't leave in October or that somehow parliament will block it (they still could...)

The May deal is a hobson deal.it was never meant to get through as the intent was to cancel brexit. Had the EU elections in the UK gone differently and it indicated a strong remain then there could have been another referendum. Instead Brexit party shot up as people want it over, they want out... Its only France that really wants the UK out as it is a massive power grab for them
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Directly under your post above:
Naib wrote:
....
Boris has turned around at the G7 summit and said in the event of a noDeal the UK would pay £9Bn... The EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill

Brexit: EU ‘would block trade deal if Britain reneged on bill
...
I have quoted two post of mine from a month ago, where I exectly said:
Not paying the bill won't let the UK trade with continental Europe. (total blocking or WTO, I don't know)
Boris did a nothing burger when threatening not to pay.

@Naib
You have to acknowledge something before I discuss further. I know you don't like, but where to discuss further on without ?
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end


Last edited by ulenrich on Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 44226
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich,

Not after the UK has left the EU.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
ulenrich,

Not after the UK has left the EU.
Why should the EU do any trade with a pirate, who is not paying bills. What is trade other than encouraging to deliver more goods, by paying the bill of the last delivery(*). The EU would consider purging things owned by Brits. Can they deliver anything then?

*PS: I have a quote in my ears from a CEO of a drugs retailer: You don't pay anything, when buying, because the goods in the store don't have any value. But you encougage the delivery of more later on.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end


Last edited by ulenrich on Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
NeddySeagoon wrote:
ulenrich,

Not after the UK has left the EU.
Why should the EU do any trade with a pirate, who is not paying bills. What is trade other than encouraging to deliver more goods, by paying the bill of the last delivery.
Again, why do you think there is any bill to pay? The agreement negotiated for under Lisbon treaty is null and void when the UK leaves under article 50. The UK never agreed to pay any bill or even to the formula used to calculate it. Remember, May's deal was rejected and legally has no force in any area.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Directly under your post above:
Naib wrote:
....
Boris has turned around at the G7 summit and said in the event of a noDeal the UK would pay £9Bn... The EU response

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill

Brexit: EU ‘would block trade deal if Britain reneged on bill
...
I have quoted two post of mine from a month ago, where I exectly said:
Not paying the bill won't let the UK trade with continental Europe. (total blocking or WTO, I don't know)
Boris did a nothing burger when threatening not to pay.

@Naib
You have to acknowledge something before I discuss further. I know you don't like, but where to discuss further on without ?
Who said no trade if UK does not pay? is this your speculation or have you got a citation. All the EU has stated is no trade discussion unless the UK pays.
Where did this, and I quote you
ulenrich wrote:
Why should the EU do any trade with a pirate, who is not paying bills.


any trade? or trade under WTO.


Also as I stated, the UK/Boris has never officially stated they were not going to pay anything. They have officially stated there is a legal point of view that the UK is not LEGALLY liable.
Why are you spinning this in a ridiculous way... The UK won't pay without a trade deal, the EU won't do trade discussions unless the UK pays... Here is a bit of independent thinking... based upon the fact that the UK has never officially stated it wouldn't pay what it owes, wouldn't it make sense that trade discussions can start as part of the withdrawal agreement and this might include any additional billions as part of the budget the UK signed up to in 2015. The EU has gone full retard here by stating no trade discussions.
Boris has wound down what uk *could* pay if there is no deal and that is £9Bn ... so options
1) EU opens discussions to come up with a deal, that will pass all parliaments in 60days, thus the £33Bn could still be honoured (if legally part of a deal that is ratified)
2) EU doesn't and we leave on Art50 terms and trade under WTO conditions and £9Bn is put on the table

Ever thought where that £9Bn figure came from? what calculations? Have a look over the expected payment dates for this divorce payment. The divorce bill was to cover liabilities that the UK agreed to. go read what that £9Bn covers and for how long, then provide citation about that there would be no more money? this should be interesting, especially with the citation that there would be no trade with EU


And you wonder why I say you can't trust the EU, just look at what you wrote, slanderous statements, non-citable
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king


Last edited by Naib on Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:05 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
ulenrich wrote:
NeddySeagoon wrote:
ulenrich,

Not after the UK has left the EU.
Why should the EU do any trade with a pirate, who is not paying bills. What is trade other than encouraging to deliver more goods, by paying the bill of the last delivery.
Again, why do you think there is any bill to pay? The agreement negotiated for under Lisbon treaty is null and void when the UK leaves under article 50. The UK never agreed to pay any bill or even to the formula used to calculate it. Remember, May's deal was rejected and legally has no force in any area.

Why do you think the EU has any interest in trade with a country which signed on costs and wouldn't pay for them later on? (Pensions for EU staff, help for africa, .... everthing what was agreed on during membership)
I think judges will sack british properties. What british corporation wants to get loose of her property, how to trade then?
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end


Last edited by ulenrich on Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 44226
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich,

Under Article 50 its 2 years notice and we are gone. There is no requirement for any negotiations, never mind actually reaching a deal.
The existing offer is 'a load of dingos kidneys' and that was spotted by the UK parliament.
That's why its not a deal. A deal suggests that there is some agreement. That's not true as the UK parliament have failed to agree it.

Its just an offer that nobody is interested in.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fine, continental blockade I suppose will reinstated after two hundred years.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why do you think the EU has any interest in trade with a country which signed on producind costs and wouldn't pay for them later on?
That is BS.

That agreement was made under the conditions of Lisbon treaty which the UK has legally exited under the conditions set forth in the treaty, namely article 50. Those provisions specifically state the UK is not legally bound by that agreement. Why would the EU (and you in particular) expect them to be? Article 50 is quite explicit.

The real question is why is the EU throwing a temper tantrum about their own rule?
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
Ever thought where that £9Bn figure came from? what calculations? Have a look over the expected payment dates for this divorce payment. The divorce bill was to cover liabilities that the UK agreed to. go read what that £9Bn covers and for how long, then provide citation about that there would be no more money? this should be interesting, especially with the citation that there would be no trade with EU
That sounds more rational than Boris threatening to pay nothing a month ago.
But
Quote:
And you wonder why I say you can't trust the EU, just look at what you wrote, slanderous statements, non-citable
Don't take me personally as a test candidate for trust regarding further EU trade deals.

I pretty much think both sides will take Mays deal in the last minute with the extra clause of a possible No-Deal situation in two years to overcome the backstop - just delaying, because Boris Johnson voted for the May deal in Parliament already.
Pretty much this is what I have tried to say a month ago.You couldn't change my prediction. They formally Brexit on time now but practically delay all the issues. Nigel Farage thinks the same about Johnson.

@Naib, you have to acknowledge sometimes something. Otherwise we talk out windows and that doesn't fun me up.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end


Last edited by ulenrich on Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 44226
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich,

That won't happen unless there is a general election and the MPs which keep voting against the offer are replaced.
Its not possible to have a general election before the end of October, so going the general election route ensures that the UK leaves on 31 Oct with no agreement.
That is the law of the land in the UK today.

With parliament dissolved for the general election, there in no one to ratify any alternative offer.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 44226
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich,

That won't happen unless there is a general election and the MPs which keep voting against the offer are replaced.
Its not possible to have a general election before the end of October, so going the general election route ensures that the UK leaves on 31 Oct with no agreement.
That is the law of the land in the UK today.

With parliament dissolved for the general election, there in no one to ratify any alternative offer.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@NeddySeagoon, what doesn't happen? The May deal without backstop?
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any deal. If a vote of no confidence is called (which is exactly what Jeremy Corbyn is planning to do) it can only end with either the motion being defeated or general elections being called. Those elections are required to occur after UK leaves the EU. This means there will be no government to approve any deal. With the margins being as they are such a vote is likely to succeed.

Corbyn also plans to form a unity government with himself as leader and ask for an extension. This is a political impossibility. Firstly, the law allows Borris Johnson to stay in power and attempt to form a new government that will pass a no confidence vote. This has been challenged but is unlikely to be resolved in the time frame required so he can do it without question. Second, the minority parties will not accept Corbyn as an interim leader. Corbyn and his supporters won't accept anyone else.

At this point, unless the EU is willing to make a deal in the next week or so there will be no opportunity. Hard brexit is not a possible outcome. At this point it is a near certainty.

EDIT: And you will probably see the brexit party sweep the next election along with pro-brexit tories at the expense of all the remain parties. This was the result in the last election. A truly bad move politically by Corbyn and a disaster for the EU.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@The_Doctor
You are predicting
1. Hard Brexit - No-Deal - will go through because of formally time lines?
Despite the majority of parliament has voted against the No-Deal already and speaker of the house has declared his enforcement of the will of the parliament.
2. General elections will forge a victory for Hard-Brexitiers anyway

Are you actually located in Great Britain to certainly feel that move in the british publc?
Or is it something Sun papers message to you?
How much the ratio would you do the bet?
Are you so sure to bet a thousand to get back 1100 ?
(When all the public think like this, they all will bet at the same side)

Interesting side note: Boris Johnson fully aligned behind Macron on all issues. This is reported in Germany, explaining the G7 success. I guess, Boris Johnson got something from Macron.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
@The_Doctor
You are predicting
1. Hard Brexit - No-Deal - will go through because of formally time lines?
Despite the majority of parliament has voted against the No-Deal already and speaker of the house has declared his enforcement of the will of the parliament.


That isn't true, why are you spreading this. There have been multiple motions (by remainers) to bake into UK law a legislation making it illegal to leave without a deal. Every single one has FAILED

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/world/europe/brexit-no-deal.html This one in March

https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-mps-reject-plan-block-uk-boris-johnson-2019-6?r=US&IR=T This one in June

The LEGAL default is to leave at the end of October, without a DEAL. why do you think leaving without a deal has been rejected when legally speaking the present law has not been overturned, ergo a MAJORITY has not voted against No-Deal as you are spreading

Stop spreading FUD

1) EU will blockage UK
2) EU will stop trading with UK
3) UK are pirates
4) Majority have voted against No-Deal
5) Boris voted for May's deal

seriously you are as bad as the EU and right now I can't trust a word you say, like I can't trust the EU
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king


Last edited by Naib on Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
because Boris Johnson voted for the May deal in Parliament already


That is a lie. Why do you keep spreading lies

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46885828
Type in Boris Johnson and see what it states


don't trust that?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-01-15-293-commons Jan 15th vote. look who voted NO
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-12-354-commons March 12 Vote vote. look who voted NO
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-04-01-397-commons April 1st vote. look who voted NO
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king


Last edited by Naib on Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:58 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know how the system works. The events following a vote of no confidence is quite explicit including the time tables. Corbyn has publicly declared he will call one as soon as possible. If that happens the government is likely to loose due to defecting remainers. In that event there is no way to stop a no deal. It is a legal impossibility since Boris won't resign and a unity government is politically impossible anyway.

As for who wins the elections, polls are amazing things.
Quote:
Are you actually located in Great Britain to certainly feel that move in the british publc?
I can read an election poll that puts a majority of voters in favor of pro-brexit parties. Strangely, that generally has some reflection of what actually happens.

Quote:
Or is it something Sun papers message to you?
How much the ratio would you do the bet?
Are you so sure to bet a thousand to get back 1100 ?
Have you not been paying attention to the political situation in the UK at all? In any event even if I'm completely wrong it makes no difference. Hard brexit on October 31st. No one can just walk that back. It would require renegotiating entry into the EU from scratch. I don't need to tell you what the chances of that being accepted would be.


EDIT: Wait, you actually think anyone needs to vote to approve a no deal? That is absurd. No legislation requiring approval ever passed and how would it even work? Article 50 sets a date and deal or no the UK is gone on that date barring an extension that France will never approve.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1390

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/world/europe/brexit-no-deal.html This one in March

Stop spreading FUD

1) EU will blockage UK
2) EU will stop trading with UK
3) UK are pirates
4) Majority have voted against No-Deal
5) Boris voted for May's deal

Apropos
1/2/3) is a scenario caused by Boris Johnson threatening to pay nothing. Me answering
This is a nothing burger, because then 1/2/3
4.) The heading of above NYTimes link begins:
Quote:
U.K. Lawmakers Reject ‘No-Deal’ Brexit

5.) I got this from LBC radio posted on Youtube, where Nigel Farage is saying this about Boris Johnson. He talked about it with fans of all parties on phone. Nobody denied this as fact. Sorry, if not true.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end


Last edited by ulenrich on Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5713
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am starting to believe you have ZERO idea how the legal system in the UK actually works... that is the only explanation for the baseless statements you keep saying.

Find me a legal reference where UK MP's have enshrined into law that UK shall not leave without a deal (ie removing no-deal)
Show me where Boris has voted in favour of May's withdrawal agreement


I am not interested in hesay, opinionated statements. I am after clear, legally binding stature, something I have consistently provided yet have been met with slander, FUD and opinions
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 1 of 26

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum