FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Divorce Bill
Divorce Bill
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around "
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is lots of talks of spending commitments with the GE coming up, but how is the government who wins going to pay the tens of billions of £ divorce bill from the EU?"
The same way they alwars do.. Pay out the like they did with the bankers .. Borrow even more, run the deficit and debt up while saying labour are irresponsible and give ' we're all in this together' bollocks.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?"
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?"
It's all bollocks and totallly made, they being the EU haven't a clue and are merely trying to rob us and balance there books, they've over charged us for years
As for going for a dinner with mates, how many of say hey why don't you bring that twat along who hasn't paid for the last ten years, and always eats more than the rest of us
We've over paid for too long, we've helped to bail out those who went bust, by building properties no one could afford to buy. I.e. Ireland Greece Spain and the rest
It's time to leave and send the sheriffs if you want us to pay fir something we aren't having and haven't had |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
It's all bollocks and totallly made, they being the EU haven't a clue and are merely trying to rob us and balance there books, they've over charged us for years
As for going for a dinner with mates, how many of say hey why don't you bring that twat along who hasn't paid for the last ten years, and always eats more than the rest of us
We've over paid for too long, we've helped to bail out those who went bust, by building properties no one could afford to buy. I.e. Ireland Greece Spain and the rest
It's time to leave and send the sheriffs if you want us to pay fir something we aren't having and haven't had"
Well you agreed to invite those countries into the EU and help build them up because it was in your interests to help them out because you could sell more to them in the long term.
If you dont pay your bill then thats fine, we wont do a trade deal and your economy will be decimated by companies downsizing to move to the EU and a huge loss in exports. No deal means a recession that will make you long for the days of 2008 and the banking crisis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around "
The EU don't have a clue, the figure has gone from 50 billion to 84 billion to 100 billion in the space of a couple of weeks. The Euroloons in Brussels have their heads up their backsides as per usual. The UK will not pay any such fee, during a joint press conference by Brexit secretary David Davis and Chancellor Phillip Hammond yesterday they both said the UK does not recognise the figures coming from the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?"
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Do we get it all back in subsidies?.
How many years membership is this 100 billion?
60 billion are pensions for UK citizens. 40 billion are the other committments made prior to Brexit. "
How the hell can pensions add up to 60 BILLION ? Cloud cuckoo land thank god we are leaving if this is the gravy train of the EU, I bet citizens in other EU countries are going to be up in arms when they find out what these fat cats are picking up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
"
 what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
It's all bollocks and totallly made, they being the EU haven't a clue and are merely trying to rob us and balance there books, they've over charged us for years
As for going for a dinner with mates, how many of say hey why don't you bring that twat along who hasn't paid for the last ten years, and always eats more than the rest of us
We've over paid for too long, we've helped to bail out those who went bust, by building properties no one could afford to buy. I.e. Ireland Greece Spain and the rest
It's time to leave and send the sheriffs if you want us to pay fir something we aren't having and haven't had
Well you agreed to invite those countries into the EU and help build them up because it was in your interests to help them out because you could sell more to them in the long term.
If you dont pay your bill then thats fine, we wont do a trade deal and your economy will be decimated by companies downsizing to move to the EU and a huge loss in exports. No deal means a recession that will make you long for the days of 2008 and the banking crisis."
Yeah they can move to that huge and broken EU market place
Hungry ain't got owt to spend neither has Greece Spain Italy Romania Bulgaria Lithuania or the Ukraine
We are one of the few who actually contribute more than we get back
Let's look at the real new emerging markets like India which will outperform the whole of the EU in the very near future, south east Asia |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal."
How did Ireland negotiate a huge bail out a few years back, was it the whisky Guinness or tatties that you used... as collateral |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
How did Ireland negotiate a huge bail out a few years back, was it the whisky Guinness or tatties that you used... as collateral "
We took out loans and we're ahead of schedule paying them back.
But loans arent a trade deal. And it was in everyone elses interest because we either took those loans or we burned the bondholders (French, German and English banks) the way Iceland did.
So one thing has nothing to do with the other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal."
Why are people attracted to the UK?
The UK is more than the sum of it's parts. I did mention macro structural forces first, over social and cultural ones, though these are integral to the UK's attraction and influence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
Why are people attracted to the UK?
The UK is more than the sum of it's parts. I did mention macro structural forces first, over social and cultural ones, though these are integral to the UK's attraction and influence. "
Its a trade deal. At no point will your architecture be under consideration.
If someone was valuing your worth as a country, absolutely architecture, tradition, stable government and the arts would be relevant. But that is not this. This is about 2 competing governmental bodies trying to get the best deal for them.
On one side the UK wants (at best) full control over its borders, access to the single market, no european courts above the British courts and the ability to make trade deals with other countries.
On the other the EU wants to prevent other countries from leaving, doesnt want to get stuck with the bill for Britains commitments, wants free movement of people, goods and capital and a strong political voice to represent EU interests.
That and a few other issues are all that matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
Why are people attracted to the UK?
The UK is more than the sum of it's parts. I did mention macro structural forces first, over social and cultural ones, though these are integral to the UK's attraction and influence.
Its a trade deal. At no point will your architecture be under consideration.
If someone was valuing your worth as a country, absolutely architecture, tradition, stable government and the arts would be relevant. But that is not this. This is about 2 competing governmental bodies trying to get the best deal for them.
On one side the UK wants (at best) full control over its borders, access to the single market, no european courts above the British courts and the ability to make trade deals with other countries.
On the other the EU wants to prevent other countries from leaving, doesnt want to get stuck with the bill for Britains commitments, wants free movement of people, goods and capital and a strong political voice to represent EU interests.
That and a few other issues are all that matters."
Why is the eu worried about others leaving ? I keep hearing how great it all is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
How did Ireland negotiate a huge bail out a few years back, was it the whisky Guinness or tatties that you used... as collateral "
Racist much? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oole2010Couple
over a year ago
southampto |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
It's all bollocks and totallly made, they being the EU haven't a clue and are merely trying to rob us and balance there books, they've over charged us for years
As for going for a dinner with mates, how many of say hey why don't you bring that twat along who hasn't paid for the last ten years, and always eats more than the rest of us
We've over paid for too long, we've helped to bail out those who went bust, by building properties no one could afford to buy. I.e. Ireland Greece Spain and the rest
It's time to leave and send the sheriffs if you want us to pay fir something we aren't having and haven't had
Well you agreed to invite those countries into the EU and help build them up because it was in your interests to help them out because you could sell more to them in the long term.
If you dont pay your bill then thats fine, we wont do a trade deal and your economy will be decimated by companies downsizing to move to the EU and a huge loss in exports. No deal means a recession that will make you long for the days of 2008 and the banking crisis."
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
How did Ireland negotiate a huge bail out a few years back, was it the whisky Guinness or tatties that you used... as collateral
"
This is quite interesting. I think I'm going to start making a list.
People Moorland doesn't like so far: Anyone from the Indian Subcontinent (apparently there are enough curry chefs here already) (See: The Turkey thread), The unemployed/disabled (See: The recently started thread of that title) and now the Irish.
Any more for any more? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
How did Ireland negotiate a huge bail out a few years back, was it the whisky Guinness or tatties that you used... as collateral
This is quite interesting. I think I'm going to start making a list.
People Moorland doesn't like so far: Anyone from the Indian Subcontinent (apparently there are enough curry chefs here already) (See: The Turkey thread), The unemployed/disabled (See: The recently started thread of that title) and now the Irish.
Any more for any more?"
I'm fine with India, after all they saved jaguar Land Rover
Ireland is good with me, my wife is half Irish
The unemployed, why do we have unemployed people whilst continually recruiting low skilled labour from Europe
Most Indian restaurants are actually Bangladeshi run
I have no problem with people with genuine disability, and actually think they should get more support, but I hate seeing the benefit system abused by scroungers, and all to often the adults that they bred
As for making your list get on with it and please keep me updated on your progress...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Do we get it all back in subsidies?.
How many years membership is this 100 billion?
60 billion are pensions for UK citizens. 40 billion are the other committments made prior to Brexit. "
60 Billion in pensions for an estimated 3,000 or so people. That's 20 Million a person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To come up with this figure within weeks of Article 50 being received is a little suspect. The EU's heads have probably picked a figure out of thin air and the remaining have ratified it as they want something to barter with. Besides free trade they have little else?
....when else would they come up with they figure except when Article 50 was recently triggered?? Officially the UK had made no formal move to leave the EU, the referendum was advisory and the UK could theoretically not enacted Article 50 for another year which would obviously change the number as committments are met,changed or new ones enacted.
Your "suspicious" move is like a waiter handing you a bill after you finished the meal you ordered and said you werent going to order anything else.
And the EU have other things to barter with, its the UK that has very little to barter with. And why should the EU pay the UKs share of things when this was all done on the basis of everyone paying what they said they would?
The UK has a lot to barter with. Consumer and business spending, research/innovation, education system, financial structures, strong political system, historical trade links. This isn't to mention culture, tourism, architecture, Royalty, sporting influence. Whilst the EU has countries with facets of these, there are few that are as robust and have all in one place. They know us leaving is a hot potato so need to show force but announcing this figure so early is more a gesture I think.
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal."
I think the comment you were referring to was implying that Britain has a huge amount of soft power and influence all over the world. Donald Tusk indicated this himself during one of his first speeches on Brexit (when he could stop himself from blabbing, wailing and crying in his milk, lol).  Tusk talked about Britain being a nuclear power, having influence all over the world and being a permanent member of the UN security council, among other things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"
what in the name of God are you blabbering about?
Youre going to negotiate a trade deal successfully because you have some nice looking buildings, a Queen and sporting influence? I would not be able to explain how ridiculous this is in small enough words for you to understand. So Ill say this: the EU, nor anyone in it, does not give one solitary sh!t how nice your buildings look when it comes to negotiating a trade deal.
Why are people attracted to the UK?
The UK is more than the sum of it's parts. I did mention macro structural forces first, over social and cultural ones, though these are integral to the UK's attraction and influence.
Its a trade deal. At no point will your architecture be under consideration.
If someone was valuing your worth as a country, absolutely architecture, tradition, stable government and the arts would be relevant. But that is not this. This is about 2 competing governmental bodies trying to get the best deal for them.
On one side the UK wants (at best) full control over its borders, access to the single market, no european courts above the British courts and the ability to make trade deals with other countries.
On the other the EU wants to prevent other countries from leaving, doesnt want to get stuck with the bill for Britains commitments, wants free movement of people, goods and capital and a strong political voice to represent EU interests.
That and a few other issues are all that matters."
If we were a country with no real political, military, social, cultural, financial, scientific, innovative or business influence do you think there would be this much tension over leaving? Look at Greece a few years back, bailed out twice, with talk of exiting. It would have been a first and the EU itself would have been seen as a failure not the Greeks. But the ramifications for the bloc for a Greek exit were nowhere near the what they are for a UK exit.
Our position is highly dependent on who and what we are and what we offer. Or are you going to explain what Brexit means again?... To get back to the point; they have plucked the figure out of thin air. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying."
A more accurate analogy would be AGREEING to go out to dinner with 27 friends but then pulling out and not actually going out to dinner with them, would you pay a bill for a dinner you did not attend... I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would either.
I do however agree that the membership fee should be paid until we actually leave but that should be separate from future projects, especially those which have not even started and are not due to start until after we've gone and for which we'd have zero benefit from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is lots of talks of spending commitments with the GE coming up, but how is the government who wins going to pay the tens of billions of £ divorce bill from the EU?"
We will have to wait and see a full detailed itemed list of every single item that we are getting charged for
Once the UK public views each item, I suspect their will be a huge outrage and the bill will not be paid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all"
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
The EU will be able to subsidise the loss of the UKs contribution by not having to give the UK any money (which leaves an 8.6 billion gap) and through all the increased tax revenue from customs duties, increased corporation tax from businesses leaving the UK and increased income tax from their new employees, not to mention the divorce payments.
The divorce payment alone would cover 12 years of your contribution. The corporation tax from even a small amount of financial firms moving to the EU would also cover it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying.
A more accurate analogy would be AGREEING to go out to dinner with 27 friends but then pulling out and not actually going out to dinner with them, would you pay a bill for a dinner you did not attend... I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would either.
I do however agree that the membership fee should be paid until we actually leave but that should be separate from future projects, especially those which have not even started and are not due to start until after we've gone and for which we'd have zero benefit from. "
The projects are ones you agreed to and agreed to be a part of financing. Why should the EU have to abandon projects its already put money into because youre trying to go back on your word?
The EU is looking out for its citizens and we wont take a financial hit because Britain cant be relied on to hold up its end of the agreements. If you wanted to back out then you shouldnt have agreed to the projects in the first place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
"
Just throwing an example out that Luxembourg has a free NHS system and seems to do pretty well? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying.
A more accurate analogy would be AGREEING to go out to dinner with 27 friends but then pulling out and not actually going out to dinner with them, would you pay a bill for a dinner you did not attend... I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would either.
I do however agree that the membership fee should be paid until we actually leave but that should be separate from future projects, especially those which have not even started and are not due to start until after we've gone and for which we'd have zero benefit from.
The projects are ones you agreed to and agreed to be a part of financing. Why should the EU have to abandon projects its already put money into because youre trying to go back on your word?
The EU is looking out for its citizens and we wont take a financial hit because Britain cant be relied on to hold up its end of the agreements. If you wanted to back out then you shouldnt have agreed to the projects in the first place. "
How's the French lessons going?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
Just throwing an example out that Luxembourg has a free NHS system and seems to do pretty well? "
well thats nice but whats that got to do with anything? Luxembourg is a completely different set up to Britain. Thats like saying Britain should focus on manufacturing because it works for China.
If you want to maintain the situation you have AND cut corporation tax by nearly 2/3 then youre going to have to raise taxes on people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
Just throwing an example out that Luxembourg has a free NHS system and seems to do pretty well?
well thats nice but whats that got to do with anything? Luxembourg is a completely different set up to Britain. Thats like saying Britain should focus on manufacturing because it works for China.
If you want to maintain the situation you have AND cut corporation tax by nearly 2/3 then youre going to have to raise taxes on people."
Why? If there are more businesses paying that tax? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
The EU will be able to subsidise the loss of the UKs contribution by not having to give the UK any money (which leaves an 8.6 billion gap) and through all the increased tax revenue from customs duties, increased corporation tax from businesses leaving the UK and increased income tax from their new employees, not to mention the divorce payments.
The divorce payment alone would cover 12 years of your contribution. The corporation tax from even a small amount of financial firms moving to the EU would also cover it."
Do you know what the average tariff that the EU applies is? Dont you get that as we import twice as much from the EU as we export then as tariffs will be equal then the UK will gain far more tax than the rest, some countries will be really hit hard because of the type of goods we import from them, ireland will be one due tothe high tariffs on dairy goods and meat,have a look and then tell us that tariffs will be good for ireland,france denmark and holland |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
Just throwing an example out that Luxembourg has a free NHS system and seems to do pretty well?
well thats nice but whats that got to do with anything? Luxembourg is a completely different set up to Britain. Thats like saying Britain should focus on manufacturing because it works for China.
If you want to maintain the situation you have AND cut corporation tax by nearly 2/3 then youre going to have to raise taxes on people."
 So you accept the prospect that countries are different in their set ups. Say when this comes to entering or possibly exiting a contact, this may well affect the outcome 
Negotiation over or are you going to hand over the cash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Do you know what the average tariff that the EU applies is? Dont you get that as we import twice as much from the EU as we export then as tariffs will be equal then the UK will gain far more tax than the rest, some countries will be really hit hard because of the type of goods we import from them, ireland will be one due tothe high tariffs on dairy goods and meat,have a look and then tell us that tariffs will be good for ireland,france denmark and holland"
You do realise that it is *us* that will pay those import taxes, right? ie. it is our own government that will be taxing its people in order to protect its own internal sellers.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
Just throwing an example out that Luxembourg has a free NHS system and seems to do pretty well?
well thats nice but whats that got to do with anything? Luxembourg is a completely different set up to Britain. Thats like saying Britain should focus on manufacturing because it works for China.
If you want to maintain the situation you have AND cut corporation tax by nearly 2/3 then youre going to have to raise taxes on people.
So you accept the prospect that countries are different in their set ups. Say when this comes to entering or possibly exiting a contact, this may well affect the outcome
Negotiation over or are you going to hand over the cash. "
I have absolutely no idea what youre attempting to say. Im sure theres a point in here I'd disagree with but I honestly dont understand what you're writing here. Im not having a dig at you, I just literally cant follow this paragraph and that might be me missing something. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do you know what the average tariff that the EU applies is? Dont you get that as we import twice as much from the EU as we export then as tariffs will be equal then the UK will gain far more tax than the rest, some countries will be really hit hard because of the type of goods we import from them, ireland will be one due tothe high tariffs on dairy goods and meat,have a look and then tell us that tariffs will be good for ireland,france denmark and holland"
You dont import twice as much as you export. You export £230Bn and import £290Bn.
Youre also not looking at the wider picture. If tarriffs on UK goods go up that will make them less competitive. That means that, for example, EU people will stop buying British beef because its more expensive and instead buy more EU beef which will benefit countries like Ireland and France. So we lose British customers but gain more EU customers.
Also you're assuming that the tarriffs will be equal and thats not the way trade deals are done. Negotiators will have goals of, for example, decreasing the taxes on bikes in exchange for the other side decreasing taxes on furniture, depending on what their goals are.
Youre also missing the fact that British businesses relocating to the EU will increase jobs, consumer spending and corporate spending. Social spending will go down due to lowering unemployment, tax revenues will go up due to increased VAT, corporation and income tax.
And youre forgetting that its ultimately consumers that pay the import duties. Theres little the UK does that cant be done by one of the other 27 countries but the reverse isnt true.
So the UK is going to see a rise in unemployment, decreased tax receipts, increased social spending (or worse services) and then theyre talking about reducing the corporation tax by 2/3 to try and draw businesses in. In order to make that tax neutral you'd have to double the amount of business done in the UK which is completely unrealistic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying.
A more accurate analogy would be AGREEING to go out to dinner with 27 friends but then pulling out and not actually going out to dinner with them, would you pay a bill for a dinner you did not attend... I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would either.
I do however agree that the membership fee should be paid until we actually leave but that should be separate from future projects, especially those which have not even started and are not due to start until after we've gone and for which we'd have zero benefit from.
The projects are ones you agreed to and agreed to be a part of financing. Why should the EU have to abandon projects its already put money into because youre trying to go back on your word?
The EU is looking out for its citizens and we wont take a financial hit because Britain cant be relied on to hold up its end of the agreements. If you wanted to back out then you shouldnt have agreed to the projects in the first place. "
If those agreements are hard and fast I.e. there is a contract of sorts such as legally binding undertaking then fine there's no issue however if these are simply in the planning stage then it's no different than a firm pulling out of a building project, not to mention that no could foresee us pulling out of the EU as it was too close to call in the first place so it would only have been prudent to continue as normal with the planned projects and planning of those projects... to go from 50 billion to 100 billion in the space of 48 hours with the depth and scope not to mention the legal and technical aspects of all these projects is I think and many would say rather suspect... posturing and bluff spring to mind, there is no doubt that there will a bill for various projects for which we have a legal responsibility but bandying around estimates is irresponsible... on both sides.. you can not be forced to pay for goods or services for which you have not received unless there is a contract with all the relevant fees terms and conditions, there will be some when it comes to leaving the EU but a 100 billion worth ? It will certainly be interesting to see just what those liabilities are supposed to be and just which governments agreed to them be they Labour or Tory.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *robertsCouple
over a year ago
Leicestershire |
Were not going to pay it !!
We've bankrolled these muppets forever and a day well 56 million a day to be precise and the gravy train is coming to an end thank god ! Go and get your money from elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying.
A more accurate analogy would be AGREEING to go out to dinner with 27 friends but then pulling out and not actually going out to dinner with them, would you pay a bill for a dinner you did not attend... I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would either.
I do however agree that the membership fee should be paid until we actually leave but that should be separate from future projects, especially those which have not even started and are not due to start until after we've gone and for which we'd have zero benefit from.
The projects are ones you agreed to and agreed to be a part of financing. Why should the EU have to abandon projects its already put money into because youre trying to go back on your word?
The EU is looking out for its citizens and we wont take a financial hit because Britain cant be relied on to hold up its end of the agreements. If you wanted to back out then you shouldnt have agreed to the projects in the first place.
If those agreements are hard and fast I.e. there is a contract of sorts such as legally binding undertaking then fine there's no issue however if these are simply in the planning stage then it's no different than a firm pulling out of a building project, not to mention that no could foresee us pulling out of the EU as it was too close to call in the first place so it would only have been prudent to continue as normal with the planned projects and planning of those projects... to go from 50 billion to 100 billion in the space of 48 hours with the depth and scope not to mention the legal and technical aspects of all these projects is I think and many would say rather suspect... posturing and bluff spring to mind, there is no doubt that there will a bill for various projects for which we have a legal responsibility but bandying around estimates is irresponsible... on both sides.. you can not be forced to pay for goods or services for which you have not received unless there is a contract with all the relevant fees terms and conditions, there will be some when it comes to leaving the EU but a 100 billion worth ? It will certainly be interesting to see just what those liabilities are supposed to be and just which governments agreed to them be they Labour or Tory.. "
Of course theres a legally binding arrangement for the contributions. Thats what the whole EU is based on, the legal frameworks are in place and are binding. We dont have 28 different legal arangements for every euro the EU soends because thats ridiculous.
But there is a legal agreement for the funding of these projects and everything else the EU does. So if the UK has committed to these projects they have to follow through on these committments. If they werent sure then they should have said so.
Its not the EUs fault your country is so disorganised. If you were considering leaving you should have laid the foundations for a simpler exit before calling the referendum. But you didnt and now youre complaining about it like its someone elses fault you committed to projects you changed your mind on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"
You dont import twice as much as you export. You export £230Bn and import £290Bn.
Youre also not looking at the wider picture. If tarriffs on UK goods go up that will make them less competitive. That means that, for example, EU people will stop buying British beef because its more expensive and instead buy more EU beef which will benefit countries like Ireland and France. So we lose British customers but gain more EU customers.
Also you're assuming that the tarriffs will be equal and thats not the way trade deals are done. Negotiators will have goals of, for example, decreasing the taxes on bikes in exchange for the other side decreasing taxes on furniture, depending on what their goals are.
Youre also missing the fact that British businesses relocating to the EU will increase jobs, consumer spending and corporate spending. Social spending will go down due to lowering unemployment, tax revenues will go up due to increased VAT, corporation and income tax.
And youre forgetting that its ultimately consumers that pay the import duties. Theres little the UK does that cant be done by one of the other 27 countries but the reverse isnt true.
So the UK is going to see a rise in unemployment, decreased tax receipts, increased social spending (or worse services) and then theyre talking about reducing the corporation tax by 2/3 to try and draw businesses in. In order to make that tax neutral you'd have to double the amount of business done in the UK which is completely unrealistic."
Uk export goods wont be up as much as eu goods coming here due to the lower pound at the moment so our exports will be much the same, yes of course tariffs will vary (if there are any) on a trade deal but not as most claim under WTO rules, the sensible approach is free trade, its strange how the EU are the ones that dont want it, more socialist thinking and of course the need to try and punish us for leaving to stop others going the same route, I have asked you this before if the EU idea of one united states of europe is so good why the need to make life hard so others dont leave. Try as you might the fact is the eu idealist are frightened their plan is done for, lets go back to the common market and dump the political union, the people of the EU would benefit from that not just a few power crazed idealists
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You dont import twice as much as you export. You export £230Bn and import £290Bn.
Youre also not looking at the wider picture. If tarriffs on UK goods go up that will make them less competitive. That means that, for example, EU people will stop buying British beef because its more expensive and instead buy more EU beef which will benefit countries like Ireland and France. So we lose British customers but gain more EU customers.
Also you're assuming that the tarriffs will be equal and thats not the way trade deals are done. Negotiators will have goals of, for example, decreasing the taxes on bikes in exchange for the other side decreasing taxes on furniture, depending on what their goals are.
Youre also missing the fact that British businesses relocating to the EU will increase jobs, consumer spending and corporate spending. Social spending will go down due to lowering unemployment, tax revenues will go up due to increased VAT, corporation and income tax.
And youre forgetting that its ultimately consumers that pay the import duties. Theres little the UK does that cant be done by one of the other 27 countries but the reverse isnt true.
So the UK is going to see a rise in unemployment, decreased tax receipts, increased social spending (or worse services) and then theyre talking about reducing the corporation tax by 2/3 to try and draw businesses in. In order to make that tax neutral you'd have to double the amount of business done in the UK which is completely unrealistic.
Uk export goods wont be up as much as eu goods coming here due to the lower pound at the moment so our exports will be much the same, yes of course tariffs will vary (if there are any) on a trade deal but not as most claim under WTO rules, the sensible approach is free trade, its strange how the EU are the ones that dont want it, more socialist thinking and of course the need to try and punish us for leaving to stop others going the same route, I have asked you this before if the EU idea of one united states of europe is so good why the need to make life hard so others dont leave. Try as you might the fact is the eu idealist are frightened their plan is done for, lets go back to the common market and dump the political union, the people of the EU would benefit from that not just a few power crazed idealists
"
UK citizens lost their right to use their voice to guide the EU with the Brexit vote. If you'd stayed in you could have helped choose the course but you left instead.
If the pound drops enough to counteract tarriffs (which can be as high as 50% for some goods) then the cost of your imports go through the roof. For every 1% you gain on exports you lose on imports and thats on a worldwide basis. Thats why its preferable to negotiate tarriffs rather than devalue currency.
The rest of the EU doesnt want to dump the political union. We like being able to move around Europe freely. We want other countries to see the EU on the same level as the US and China. We want to present a united front to the growing Russian threat.
The UK wanted out of the EU and so its going to be out. The EU and the UK are now on opposite sides of this negotiation and we're going to negotiate hard to get the best deal for us and that doesnt include taking on your debts for your committments and it doesnt include handing you a beneficial trade deal that harms our interests.
The UK has set itself in opposition to the EU, large sections of the population want to see the EU fail and then those same people cry about the EU not helping them deal with the mess they made. Your economy has been set upon a foundation of free trade with the EU for decades, now youve removed it and complain...strange behaviour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You dont import twice as much as you export. You export £230Bn and import £290Bn.
Youre also not looking at the wider picture. If tarriffs on UK goods go up that will make them less competitive. That means that, for example, EU people will stop buying British beef because its more expensive and instead buy more EU beef which will benefit countries like Ireland and France. So we lose British customers but gain more EU customers.
Also you're assuming that the tarriffs will be equal and thats not the way trade deals are done. Negotiators will have goals of, for example, decreasing the taxes on bikes in exchange for the other side decreasing taxes on furniture, depending on what their goals are.
Youre also missing the fact that British businesses relocating to the EU will increase jobs, consumer spending and corporate spending. Social spending will go down due to lowering unemployment, tax revenues will go up due to increased VAT, corporation and income tax.
And youre forgetting that its ultimately consumers that pay the import duties. Theres little the UK does that cant be done by one of the other 27 countries but the reverse isnt true.
So the UK is going to see a rise in unemployment, decreased tax receipts, increased social spending (or worse services) and then theyre talking about reducing the corporation tax by 2/3 to try and draw businesses in. In order to make that tax neutral you'd have to double the amount of business done in the UK which is completely unrealistic.
Uk export goods wont be up as much as eu goods coming here due to the lower pound at the moment so our exports will be much the same, yes of course tariffs will vary (if there are any) on a trade deal but not as most claim under WTO rules, the sensible approach is free trade, its strange how the EU are the ones that dont want it, more socialist thinking and of course the need to try and punish us for leaving to stop others going the same route, I have asked you this before if the EU idea of one united states of europe is so good why the need to make life hard so others dont leave. Try as you might the fact is the eu idealist are frightened their plan is done for, lets go back to the common market and dump the political union, the people of the EU would benefit from that not just a few power crazed idealists
"
....Well said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You dont import twice as much as you export. You export £230Bn and import £290Bn.
Youre also not looking at the wider picture. If tarriffs on UK goods go up that will make them less competitive. That means that, for example, EU people will stop buying British beef because its more expensive and instead buy more EU beef which will benefit countries like Ireland and France. So we lose British customers but gain more EU customers.
Also you're assuming that the tarriffs will be equal and thats not the way trade deals are done. Negotiators will have goals of, for example, decreasing the taxes on bikes in exchange for the other side decreasing taxes on furniture, depending on what their goals are.
Youre also missing the fact that British businesses relocating to the EU will increase jobs, consumer spending and corporate spending. Social spending will go down due to lowering unemployment, tax revenues will go up due to increased VAT, corporation and income tax.
And youre forgetting that its ultimately consumers that pay the import duties. Theres little the UK does that cant be done by one of the other 27 countries but the reverse isnt true.
So the UK is going to see a rise in unemployment, decreased tax receipts, increased social spending (or worse services) and then theyre talking about reducing the corporation tax by 2/3 to try and draw businesses in. In order to make that tax neutral you'd have to double the amount of business done in the UK which is completely unrealistic.
Uk export goods wont be up as much as eu goods coming here due to the lower pound at the moment so our exports will be much the same, yes of course tariffs will vary (if there are any) on a trade deal but not as most claim under WTO rules, the sensible approach is free trade, its strange how the EU are the ones that dont want it, more socialist thinking and of course the need to try and punish us for leaving to stop others going the same route, I have asked you this before if the EU idea of one united states of europe is so good why the need to make life hard so others dont leave. Try as you might the fact is the eu idealist are frightened their plan is done for, lets go back to the common market and dump the political union, the people of the EU would benefit from that not just a few power crazed idealists
UK citizens lost their right to use their voice to guide the EU with the Brexit vote. If you'd stayed in you could have helped choose the course but you left instead.
If the pound drops enough to counteract tarriffs (which can be as high as 50% for some goods) then the cost of your imports go through the roof. For every 1% you gain on exports you lose on imports and thats on a worldwide basis. Thats why its preferable to negotiate tarriffs rather than devalue currency.
The rest of the EU doesnt want to dump the political union. We like being able to move around Europe freely. We want other countries to see the EU on the same level as the US and China. We want to present a united front to the growing Russian threat.
The UK wanted out of the EU and so its going to be out. The EU and the UK are now on opposite sides of this negotiation and we're going to negotiate hard to get the best deal for us and that doesnt include taking on your debts for your committments and it doesnt include handing you a beneficial trade deal that harms our interests.
The UK has set itself in opposition to the EU, large sections of the population want to see the EU fail and then those same people cry about the EU not helping them deal with the mess they made. Your economy has been set upon a foundation of free trade with the EU for decades, now youve removed it and complain...strange behaviour."
Do large sections of the UK really want to see the EU fail? I hope this isn't true. Some you see in these forums seem blinded by hate of the EU.I dont see them as representational of the population.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"
You dont import twice as much as you export. You export £230Bn and import £290Bn.
Youre also not looking at the wider picture. If tarriffs on UK goods go up that will make them less competitive. That means that, for example, EU people will stop buying British beef because its more expensive and instead buy more EU beef which will benefit countries like Ireland and France. So we lose British customers but gain more EU customers.
Also you're assuming that the tarriffs will be equal and thats not the way trade deals are done. Negotiators will have goals of, for example, decreasing the taxes on bikes in exchange for the other side decreasing taxes on furniture, depending on what their goals are.
Youre also missing the fact that British businesses relocating to the EU will increase jobs, consumer spending and corporate spending. Social spending will go down due to lowering unemployment, tax revenues will go up due to increased VAT, corporation and income tax.
And youre forgetting that its ultimately consumers that pay the import duties. Theres little the UK does that cant be done by one of the other 27 countries but the reverse isnt true.
So the UK is going to see a rise in unemployment, decreased tax receipts, increased social spending (or worse services) and then theyre talking about reducing the corporation tax by 2/3 to try and draw businesses in. In order to make that tax neutral you'd have to double the amount of business done in the UK which is completely unrealistic.
Uk export goods wont be up as much as eu goods coming here due to the lower pound at the moment so our exports will be much the same, yes of course tariffs will vary (if there are any) on a trade deal but not as most claim under WTO rules, the sensible approach is free trade, its strange how the EU are the ones that dont want it, more socialist thinking and of course the need to try and punish us for leaving to stop others going the same route, I have asked you this before if the EU idea of one united states of europe is so good why the need to make life hard so others dont leave. Try as you might the fact is the eu idealist are frightened their plan is done for, lets go back to the common market and dump the political union, the people of the EU would benefit from that not just a few power crazed idealists
UK citizens lost their right to use their voice to guide the EU with the Brexit vote. If you'd stayed in you could have helped choose the course but you left instead.
If the pound drops enough to counteract tarriffs (which can be as high as 50% for some goods) then the cost of your imports go through the roof. For every 1% you gain on exports you lose on imports and thats on a worldwide basis. Thats why its preferable to negotiate tarriffs rather than devalue currency.
The rest of the EU doesnt want to dump the political union. We like being able to move around Europe freely. We want other countries to see the EU on the same level as the US and China. We want to present a united front to the growing Russian threat.
The UK wanted out of the EU and so its going to be out. The EU and the UK are now on opposite sides of this negotiation and we're going to negotiate hard to get the best deal for us and that doesnt include taking on your debts for your committments and it doesnt include handing you a beneficial trade deal that harms our interests.
The UK has set itself in opposition to the EU, large sections of the population want to see the EU fail and then those same people cry about the EU not helping them deal with the mess they made. Your economy has been set upon a foundation of free trade with the EU for decades, now youve removed it and complain...strange behaviour.Do large sections of the UK really want to see the EU fail? I hope this isn't true. Some you see in these forums seem blinded by hate of the EU.I dont see them as representational of the population. "
Indeed. The only place I've seen people actually wanting the UK to fail is on this forum. I know some who want us out, but none who want the EU itself to actually fail. But I tend to steer clear of the daily mail and right wing hangouts, which might be where they congregate.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
I dont think any sane person wants europe to fail. Lots of people want to see an end to the political dogma of a united states of europe, it cant work the areas that the EU now cover are too vast and too diverse for it to ever be sucessful that is as I have said many times why I voted out. The response from those at the top of the EU and some posts here make that fact so obvious again I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth "
The UK is going to lose the benefits of being in the EU. That was the voters choice. How is the EU making things difficult for the UK by simply going along with Brexit?
If you want the free movement of capital, goods and services then you have to accept the free movement of people as well. If you dont like it then thats fine with us but its a package deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
The EU will be able to subsidise the loss of the UKs contribution by not having to give the UK any money (which leaves an 8.6 billion gap) and through all the increased tax revenue from customs duties, increased corporation tax from businesses leaving the UK and increased income tax from their new employees, not to mention the divorce payments.
The divorce payment alone would cover 12 years of your contribution. The corporation tax from even a small amount of financial firms moving to the EU would also cover it."
I couldn't be arsed to read any more on your theory of tax versus the EU, after you said the EU can simply balance up their books as they won't be paying any money to the UK
So if I give my mate £100 and he gives me £50 pound back and says here you go steve, spend that but only on retain things and keeps £50. I'm now £50 poorer and my mate has dictated my life style
Seems like them leprechaun voices are once again active in your head, I know it's the weekend, but a little less of the Guinness might help your thought process
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I dont think any sane person wants europe to fail. Lots of people want to see an end to the political dogma of a united states of europe, it cant work the areas that the EU now cover are too vast and too diverse for it to ever be sucessful that is as I have said many times why I voted out. The response from those at the top of the EU and some posts here make that fact so obvious again I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth "
Just how many international business meeting are conducted in French, unless of course it's French speakers involved.
The schools and adult learning centres of Europe are going to very busy, with millions of people frantically trying to learn French, as that is now the international language of choice according the EUs head bully boy Juncker
The guy is mad, hence the reason like so many others of the political elite he has never had a real job with real day to day responsibilities |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
The EU will be able to subsidise the loss of the UKs contribution by not having to give the UK any money (which leaves an 8.6 billion gap) and through all the increased tax revenue from customs duties, increased corporation tax from businesses leaving the UK and increased income tax from their new employees, not to mention the divorce payments.
The divorce payment alone would cover 12 years of your contribution. The corporation tax from even a small amount of financial firms moving to the EU would also cover it.
I couldn't be arsed to read any more on your theory of tax versus the EU, after you said the EU can simply balance up their books as they won't be paying any money to the UK
So if I give my mate £100 and he gives me £50 pound back and says here you go steve, spend that but only on retain things and keeps £50. I'm now £50 poorer and my mate has dictated my life style
Seems like them leprechaun voices are once again active in your head, I know it's the weekend, but a little less of the Guinness might help your thought process
"
I can see youre getting frustrated with not being able to understand the situation and thats probably why your argument has devolved into tired lazy stereotypes. Not that it bothers me, it just shows the low level of intelligence and xenophobia that characterises Brexiters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
The EU will be able to subsidise the loss of the UKs contribution by not having to give the UK any money (which leaves an 8.6 billion gap) and through all the increased tax revenue from customs duties, increased corporation tax from businesses leaving the UK and increased income tax from their new employees, not to mention the divorce payments.
The divorce payment alone would cover 12 years of your contribution. The corporation tax from even a small amount of financial firms moving to the EU would also cover it.
I couldn't be arsed to read any more on your theory of tax versus the EU, after you said the EU can simply balance up their books as they won't be paying any money to the UK
So if I give my mate £100 and he gives me £50 pound back and says here you go steve, spend that but only on retain things and keeps £50. I'm now £50 poorer and my mate has dictated my life style
Seems like them leprechaun voices are once again active in your head, I know it's the weekend, but a little less of the Guinness might help your thought process
I can see youre getting frustrated with not being able to understand the situation and thats probably why your argument has devolved into tired lazy stereotypes. Not that it bothers me, it just shows the low level of intelligence and xenophobia that characterises Brexiters."
Thanks for your opinion, it has been processed and stored in the round brown receptacle |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
" I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth
The UK is going to lose the benefits of being in the EU. That was the voters choice. How is the EU making things difficult for the UK by simply going along with Brexit?
If you want the free movement of capital, goods and services then you have to accept the free movement of people as well. If you dont like it then thats fine with us but its a package deal."
You have an opinion and like some countries of the EU, which differers from the UK. It doesn't however, make it a consensus or absolute. As other leaders have offered support or a softening to some terms it merely allows you a voice and point of view to be heard.
The triggering of Article 50 has set in motion a negotiation. Both the UK and the EU know it is best to reach a deal than not. Whilst it's members may intimate the repayment of funds now, everything is negotiable until a deal signed.
Note the words Negotiation & Deal - they are featured heavily by both sides. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth
The UK is going to lose the benefits of being in the EU. That was the voters choice. How is the EU making things difficult for the UK by simply going along with Brexit?
If you want the free movement of capital, goods and services then you have to accept the free movement of people as well. If you dont like it then thats fine with us but its a package deal."
I think it might be a little more a la carte than we expect. The important fact is the UK is not in the Euro which gives both sides more room to be flexible. The downside is if the UK over plays it's hand or the EU gets split by regional factions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The EU has held firm in every treaty and every negotiation so far that free movement of people be included where it requires it. Even Switzerland has had to accept it. Given what the EU stands for and where negotiations stand theres no reason to believe that their stance on free movement for market access is even flexible let alone up for negotiation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The EU has held firm in every treaty and every negotiation so far that free movement of people be included where it requires it. Even Switzerland has had to accept it. Given what the EU stands for and where negotiations stand theres no reason to believe that their stance on free movement for market access is even flexible let alone up for negotiation."
Not flexible on free movement? Really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"The EU has held firm in every treaty and every negotiation so far that free movement of people be included where it requires it. Even Switzerland has had to accept it. Given what the EU stands for and where negotiations stand theres no reason to believe that their stance on free movement for market access is even flexible let alone up for negotiation.
Not flexible on free movement? Really?"
The idealists who want a united states of europe want free movement so millions lose their sense of national identity, they then can create a sense of european identity to create their utopia. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"The EU has held firm in every treaty and every negotiation so far that free movement of people be included where it requires it. Even Switzerland has had to accept it. Given what the EU stands for and where negotiations stand theres no reason to believe that their stance on free movement for market access is even flexible let alone up for negotiation.
Not flexible on free movement? Really?
The idealists who want a united states of europe want free movement so millions lose their sense of national identity, they then can create a sense of european identity to create their utopia."
Or... they just want to be able to move about and life and work in other countries without hassle.
You really are quite scared of the world, aren't you?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"
Or... they just want to be able to move about and life and work in other countries without hassle.
You really are quite scared of the world, aren't you?
-Matt"
Says the person who wants to stay in a socialist idealistic dream .
Just because I dont want to live in a european super state that will be like the ussr doesnt mean I am scared of the world, I have no fear of controlled immigration and am on record on this site many times stating this, its not the brexit side that are scared |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU has held firm in every treaty and every negotiation so far that free movement of people be included where it requires it. Even Switzerland has had to accept it. Given what the EU stands for and where negotiations stand theres no reason to believe that their stance on free movement for market access is even flexible let alone up for negotiation."
The UK position is to leave the EU, leave the single market and the customs union. Free movement of people will not apply to the UK after Brexit. The sooner people like you get used to it the better. The EU Free movement of people principle was firmly rejected by the British public on June 23rd last year in the referendum. Now it seems the people of the UK are firmly embracing Theresa May and the Conservatives plan for Brexit after their victory in the local elections on Thursday, and Theresa May will be backed by the public again and get a big majority for her Brexit plan on June 8th in the general election. The UK is not bluffing when we say we will walk away from the table rather than accept a bad deal from the EU. The Conservative cabinet secretary Jeremy Heyward is putting together contingency plans for the event of no deal with the EU and it's reported Theresa May is considering making them public. The EU may have been able to bully countries like Greece in recent years but make no mistake the UK will not be bullied by anyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Macdonald's and Starbucks have partially moved and will fully move their European headquarters to this country as this country has dropped corporation tax to 19 percent
Corporation tax will go down to 17 percent by 2020, last year's corporation tax income rose by 12.5 percent.
Brussels are wary of the fact that if they try to shag us over a deal we can leave drop our corporation tax to 8 percent which will be cheaper than Bulgaria's 10 percent and Ireland's 12.5 percent
So if it does happen let's see how long big firms loyalty to the EU will last.
Oh and i don't think all the EU citizens are going to be very happy when their tax bills go up to make up the UK contribution shortfall to pay to the 14 other members who pay f all
You do realise that dropping your corporation tax by nearly 2/3 would mean losing a huge chunk of your tax take. It would be the end of the NHS. And if there are tarriffs of as little as 13% on a companies products and services then it would wipe out most of the gains of an 8% corporation tax.
The EU will be able to subsidise the loss of the UKs contribution by not having to give the UK any money (which leaves an 8.6 billion gap) and through all the increased tax revenue from customs duties, increased corporation tax from businesses leaving the UK and increased income tax from their new employees, not to mention the divorce payments.
The divorce payment alone would cover 12 years of your contribution. The corporation tax from even a small amount of financial firms moving to the EU would also cover it.
I couldn't be arsed to read any more on your theory of tax versus the EU, after you said the EU can simply balance up their books as they won't be paying any money to the UK
So if I give my mate £100 and he gives me £50 pound back and says here you go steve, spend that but only on retain things and keeps £50. I'm now £50 poorer and my mate has dictated my life style
Seems like them leprechaun voices are once again active in your head, I know it's the weekend, but a little less of the Guinness might help your thought process
I can see youre getting frustrated with not being able to understand the situation and thats probably why your argument has devolved into tired lazy stereotypes. Not that it bothers me, it just shows the low level of intelligence and xenophobia that characterises Brexiters."
By the same token it's clear you are getting frustrated by not being able to understand the situation either, that's why your argument has devolved into tired, lazy stereotypes, throwing around the same old, same old uneducated, xenophobe labels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I dont think any sane person wants europe to fail. Lots of people want to see an end to the political dogma of a united states of europe, it cant work the areas that the EU now cover are too vast and too diverse for it to ever be sucessful that is as I have said many times why I voted out. The response from those at the top of the EU and some posts here make that fact so obvious again I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth
Just how many international business meeting are conducted in French, unless of course it's French speakers involved.
The schools and adult learning centres of Europe are going to very busy, with millions of people frantically trying to learn French, as that is now the international language of choice according the EUs head bully boy Juncker
The guy is mad, hence the reason like so many others of the political elite he has never had a real job with real day to day responsibilities "
It's been reported now some senior EU figures are embarrassed by the behaviour of Mr Juncker in recent weeks. They are said to include the Commission's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU has held firm in every treaty and every negotiation so far that free movement of people be included where it requires it. Even Switzerland has had to accept it. Given what the EU stands for and where negotiations stand theres no reason to believe that their stance on free movement for market access is even flexible let alone up for negotiation.
The UK position is to leave the EU, leave the single market and the customs union. Free movement of people will not apply to the UK after Brexit. The sooner people like you get used to it the better. The EU Free movement of people principle was firmly rejected by the British public on June 23rd last year in the referendum. Now it seems the people of the UK are firmly embracing Theresa May and the Conservatives plan for Brexit after their victory in the local elections on Thursday, and Theresa May will be backed by the public again and get a big majority for her Brexit plan on June 8th in the general election. The UK is not bluffing when we say we will walk away from the table rather than accept a bad deal from the EU. The Conservative cabinet secretary Jeremy Heyward is putting together contingency plans for the event of no deal with the EU and it's reported Theresa May is considering making them public. The EU may have been able to bully countries like Greece in recent years but make no mistake the UK will not be bullied by anyone. "
Theres nothing Id disagree with there except that its not a given what the UK will do when it doesnt get what it wants. Its still something that we're waiting to unfold. Id say its more likely there'll be a deal because the UK literally cant afford not to but its not a whole lot more likely than them walking away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"I dont think any sane person wants europe to fail. Lots of people want to see an end to the political dogma of a united states of europe, it cant work the areas that the EU now cover are too vast and too diverse for it to ever be sucessful that is as I have said many times why I voted out. The response from those at the top of the EU and some posts here make that fact so obvious again I have asked why make life difficult for us so others dont follow suit if the EU is so great there would be no need to make threats, I notice no eu fans answer that point, they know the truth
Just how many international business meeting are conducted in French, unless of course it's French speakers involved.
The schools and adult learning centres of Europe are going to very busy, with millions of people frantically trying to learn French, as that is now the international language of choice according the EUs head bully boy Juncker
The guy is mad, hence the reason like so many others of the political elite he has never had a real job with real day to day responsibilities "
He spent many years presiding over that well known EU tax haven, Luxembourg, and some of his decisions there may be coming back to haunt him in the near future.
Some of his recent ramblings are smacking of desperation, and his 7am phone call to Merkel the morning after the dinner, shows where his loyalties lie.
He's not a man I'd like to deal with. Michel Barnier lost the election to the Presidency to Juncker, and has now worked closely with Juncker. Barnier will get these negotiations started but then another name will take over, once some semblance of progress has been made.
That name is Sabine Weyand.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce. "
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal. "
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside."
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The figures being banded about in the media are just speculations. The EU as far as I am aware, have not actually released any figure to date? So it's all being whipped up as usual by the media. Anyone who has gone through a divorce knows it's best to have a mature debate as opposed to insulting each other. (Some idiots on both sides). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership. "
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership.
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU."
If the UK are net contributors how could anything have been part financed by the EU?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership.
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU.
If the UK are net contributors how could anything have been part financed by the EU? "
Comfirmation that you dont know how even the basics of the EU functions. No wonder its impossible to get you even to a reasonable disagreement when you dont understand the fundamentals of what we're discussing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership.
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU.
If the UK are net contributors how could anything have been part financed by the EU?
Comfirmation that you dont know how even the basics of the EU functions. No wonder its impossible to get you even to a reasonable disagreement when you dont understand the fundamentals of what we're discussing."
I know how the EU functions alright, you are the one confused. The EU doesn't have any bleedin money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership. "
Yes that is very true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?"
At a guess it'll be paid out over a number of years, a lot of the bill is pensions so its not due all at once so theres little need for it to be paid all at once.
If we see the EU pushing for it to be paid all at once its either because they dont have faith in the post Brexit economy or theyre really looking to make sure Brexits a failure and the EU doesnt really care about getting an agreement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership.
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU."
You really misunderstand simple maths don't you.
I give you £100 for the benefit of being in a an ill run club, you give me £50 and say there you are geezer sorry about the crap service here is a refund but you can only spend it in the club shop.
I spend the £50 and buy an item or 2.
I'm still not happy with the service, but you say tough I gave you £50 back and you spent it in the club shop. So it's a bit tough, oh and by the way you owe us the original £50 back as well.
That's how the EU treats the UK, we owe them nada for anything, as we over paid in the 1st place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen"
How about raising income tax for self employed people? Bunch of tax dodgers them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership.
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU.
You really misunderstand simple maths don't you.
I give you £100 for the benefit of being in a an ill run club, you give me £50 and say there you are geezer sorry about the crap service here is a refund but you can only spend it in the club shop.
I spend the £50 and buy an item or 2.
I'm still not happy with the service, but you say tough I gave you £50 back and you spent it in the club shop. So it's a bit tough, oh and by the way you owe us the original £50 back as well.
That's how the EU treats the UK, we owe them nada for anything, as we over paid in the 1st place "
And how did you overpay? You got everything your government agreed to at the price they agreed to. Its not the EUs fault you made long term agreements you didnt want to. If you sign a lease agreement and decide to terminate it early you have to pay a termination fee. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen"
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper. "
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
Whilst this is leaked, it is interesting non the less. Headlines read "€100bn Brexit bill is "legally impossible", should make for some interesting debate given the depth of legal knowledge thrown out by some . Sorry for the quip, the timing of the article makes it easy, whether we pay a share or not.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/07/even-eu-lawyers-say-e100bn-brexit-bill-is-legally-impossible-to-enforce-6621018/
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" One of todays papers is reporting that the EU's lawyers are saying the EU exit bill will be legally impossible to enforce.
That just confirms what the House of Lords committee has been saying all along, that legally the UK is not obliged to pay the EU a single penny upon leaving in the event of no deal.
That may well be true but I feel we have a moral duty to pay for things such as infrastructure we agreed to and maybe something towards pensions for brits who worked there but of course there again money for that should have already been put aside.
On that basis then doesn't the EU also have a moral duty to give the UK a share in the many EU assets (buildings and infrastructure) the UK contributions have paid towards in the EU over the last 40 years of membership.
But you are keeping the buildings, infrastructure and subsidies you've recieved over the years. No ones asking for your roads back or anything else that was part financed by the EU.
You really misunderstand simple maths don't you.
I give you £100 for the benefit of being in a an ill run club, you give me £50 and say there you are geezer sorry about the crap service here is a refund but you can only spend it in the club shop.
I spend the £50 and buy an item or 2.
I'm still not happy with the service, but you say tough I gave you £50 back and you spent it in the club shop. So it's a bit tough, oh and by the way you owe us the original £50 back as well.
That's how the EU treats the UK, we owe them nada for anything, as we over paid in the 1st place "
The rebate is actually spent in deprived area's in the UK which is for the benefit of UK inhabitants? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It may not legally enforcable because there was no get out clause for the EU until recently and we're in legally uncharted waters here.
But the money is about the exit deal. If the EU says theres no deal without a payment then theres no deal. I dont think anyone here has claimed differently unless I missed something.
Ultimately the UK needs a deal done, even the most optimistic view of Brexit would need years for the UK to establish new trade deals and for UK business to make use of them. So in the short term post Brexit they need to be able to trade on a solid basis with the EU and WTO trading terms are not going to be good enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *100Man
over a year ago
Essex |
"There is lots of talks of spending commitments with the GE coming up, but how is the government who wins going to pay the tens of billions of £ divorce bill from the EU?"
I would personally worry more about getting that gorgeous young lady of yours into bed than worrying about the economy mate you or I can't change anything alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
How about raising income tax for self employed people? Bunch of tax dodgers them! "
Mmmmm let me think about that
I've paid tax at 40% for nearly 30 years
I've raised 1000,S on behalf of the exchequer in vat payments
I pay both corporation tax and personal tax
So it's over to you, and thanks for the little dig it's appreciated
As I've said if you wish to send me a personal message i am more than willing to meet up and discuss your concerns with you, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?"
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ir1967Man
over a year ago
in da sticks, london, amsterdam, madrid |
"So where in the agreement is it written that any country wishing to leave the EU has to pay the next 5 or so years in contributions ? Surely if it's 3 years then that would not be the 100 billion that has been bandied around
The 100 billion is based on what the UK has committed to as a part of the EU. Not paying is like going out to dinner with 27 friends and then at the end trying to leave without paying.
A more accurate analogy would be AGREEING to go out to dinner with 27 friends but then pulling out and not actually going out to dinner with them, would you pay a bill for a dinner you did not attend... I wouldn't and I don't think many other people would either.
I do however agree that the membership fee should be paid until we actually leave but that should be separate from future projects, especially those which have not even started and are not due to start until after we've gone and for which we'd have zero benefit from.
The projects are ones you agreed to and agreed to be a part of financing. Why should the EU have to abandon projects its already put money into because youre trying to go back on your word?
The EU is looking out for its citizens and we wont take a financial hit because Britain cant be relied on to hold up its end of the agreements. If you wanted to back out then you shouldnt have agreed to the projects in the first place. "
 This! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans "
Well your internet bluster is both admirable and impressive it doesnt have much application in the real world.
The UK has 2 main issues it needs to address for its own benefit and both are trade related.
1. It needs to be able to trade with the EU on as favourable terms as possible in the short term if not the long term as transitioning from 48% trade with the EU to a more global trade position will take years of negotiation.
2. You have no trading allowances in current treaties. The EU legally owns all allowances that are contained in trade agreements with the rest of the world. If you want to export beef to any country thats going to be a massive influx of additional foreign beef to that country. And the local farmers are going to raise absolute hell about it because thats going to hurt them considerably. You can replace beef and farmers with any other product and supplier. The only way you can get around that is if the EU voluntarily gives up some of its allowance for the UK to use.
No Brexiter has ever been able to answer how they'll deal with the trade disadvantages if they walk away from a deal. Its mostly been empty statements with no acceptance of reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ir1967Man
over a year ago
in da sticks, london, amsterdam, madrid |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans "
Well if you refer to WWII, then you better read up history . It's the 23 Million soldiers and civilians the Soviet Union lost in this conflict and the support of General Siberian Winter which decided the wars end. The Normandy invasion was necessary to ensure the Red Army doesn't match all the way to the Atlantic coast |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
Well if you refer to WWII, then you better read up history . It's the 23 Million soldiers and civilians the Soviet Union lost in this conflict and the support of General Siberian Winter which decided the wars end. The Normandy invasion was necessary to ensure the Red Army doesn't match all the way to the Atlantic coast "
So the Germans were on our side? Blimey thats a new one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
How about raising income tax for self employed people? Bunch of tax dodgers them!
Mmmmm let me think about that
I've paid tax at 40% for nearly 30 years
I've raised 1000,S on behalf of the exchequer in vat payments
I pay both corporation tax and personal tax
So it's over to you, and thanks for the little dig it's appreciated
As I've said if you wish to send me a personal message i am more than willing to meet up and discuss your concerns with you, "
Nah, your fine thanks, you can keep your thinly veiled threats of violence on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans "
I believe reparations have all been paid back already haven't they? We finished paying back our WWII loans to the U.S. in the late 90s early 00s if I remember correctly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
Well if you refer to WWII, then you better read up history . It's the 23 Million soldiers and civilians the Soviet Union lost in this conflict and the support of General Siberian Winter which decided the wars end. The Normandy invasion was necessary to ensure the Red Army doesn't match all the way to the Atlantic coast
So the Germans were on our side? Blimey thats a new one"
Lol
The RAF were just up there having a jolly with them waving at each other over the coast of the UK
Hello Fritz howse you today, howse it going in Poland
A little flick of the wing and the bombers turned around and headed of over to Russia
Good bye Fritz see you in the summer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
I believe reparations have all been paid back already haven't they? We finished paying back our WWII loans to the U.S. in the late 90s early 00s if I remember correctly. "
Yep that's right we paid the US for lend lease,
I know the EU referendum was difficult for you, but honestly look at what you wrote lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
How about raising income tax for self employed people? Bunch of tax dodgers them!
Mmmmm let me think about that
I've paid tax at 40% for nearly 30 years
I've raised 1000,S on behalf of the exchequer in vat payments
I pay both corporation tax and personal tax
So it's over to you, and thanks for the little dig it's appreciated
As I've said if you wish to send me a personal message i am more than willing to meet up and discuss your concerns with you,
Nah, your fine thanks, you can keep your thinly veiled threats of violence on here. "
Howse the construction process going, how big a chamber can you get in your back garden?.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
Well if you refer to WWII, then you better read up history . It's the 23 Million soldiers and civilians the Soviet Union lost in this conflict and the support of General Siberian Winter which decided the wars end. The Normandy invasion was necessary to ensure the Red Army doesn't match all the way to the Atlantic coast "
Bloody hell if only the bastards of Bastogne had known what you know, Them screaming eagles sat in their slit trenches whilst they were shelled at shot at. They could have stayed at home in the US, tucked up in there beds tending to their mid west farms |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
Well if you refer to WWII, then you better read up history . It's the 23 Million soldiers and civilians the Soviet Union lost in this conflict and the support of General Siberian Winter which decided the wars end. The Normandy invasion was necessary to ensure the Red Army doesn't match all the way to the Atlantic coast "
Nice to know we did fuck all in the second world war. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
Well if you refer to WWII, then you better read up history . It's the 23 Million soldiers and civilians the Soviet Union lost in this conflict and the support of General Siberian Winter which decided the wars end. The Normandy invasion was necessary to ensure the Red Army doesn't match all the way to the Atlantic coast
Nice to know we did fuck all in the second world war."
So all of them names on head stones in Arnhem that I visited last week, don't really exist.
Or the huge American cemetery in Normandy,
I don't what went on we could have just cut of the aid to Russia when they entered Berlin and gone over in a ferry or 2 with a few Willis jeeps and some Sherman's just in case a few Germans fancied their chances |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans "
Classy, real classy. I could say many positive things about the Germans, including the fact they acknowledge and regret their history.
If only the same could be said about the English.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So how are we going to pay for it?we can always give them luncheon vouchers for use in the over subsides Bruxelles canteen
Na, the Brussels canteen budget has already been spent on Jean Claude D*unkers favourite tipples, Brandy for breakfast, Gin and whisky for lunch and vodka for supper.
So I'm guessing you would be happy if the government put up taxes to pay for the bill then?
Simple option tell them to fuck right off here's the bill plus interest for the costs incurred by us to free you all from the Germans
Classy, real classy. I could say many positive things about the Germans, including the fact they acknowledge and regret their history.
If only the same could be said about the English.
"
Thanks I appreciate the acknowledgement, and yeah I must admit I've had many a pleasant holiday in Germany |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
i was playing gigs in berlin before during and after the wall came down .... the biggest celebrations came on 2nd october 1990 when the allied occupation of germany finally ended .... was a pretty awesome party to be fair |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
