The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[RJRB]

The Netherlands might not contribute as much as the UK in total value, but The Netherlands certainly contributes the most to the EU budget per head. The UK is 8th on that particular scale.

 

It's a widely-published fact.

 

Thanks for responding before I got the chance.

I didn’t think that I had to go on to explain what I stated,but it is correct.Iwill try to continue to educate pork,but there are some hopeless cases.

And yes I fervently believe what I say and still wait in vain for a reasoned argument for paying £50 billion to achieve exactly what.

So come on IL and spell out your vision for the future .

[ENG601PM]

Looks like we keep the EU rules and regulations through the transition period. So nothing much is going to change until 2021.

 

I wonder if some people are finally beginning to realise that the EU that citizens and business want is a simple (in concept) open borders travel, trade, and standards community, not ever the closer union that the EUrofacist politicians want.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2017 at 12:38 ----------

 

The Netherlands might not contribute as much as the UK in total value, but The Netherlands certainly contributes the most to the EU budget per head. The UK is 8th on that particular scale.

 

It's a widely-published fact.

 

It's not what RJRB claimed though.

Thanks for responding before I got the chance.

I didn’t think that I had to go on to explain what I stated,but it is correct.Iwill try to continue to educate pork,but there are some hopeless cases.

And yes I fervently believe what I say and still wait in vain for a reasoned argument for paying £50 billion to achieve exactly what.

So come on IL and spell out your vision for the future .

 

There is no reasoned argument beyond settling the accounts. After all, Canada didn't pay a penny for an FTA. If it looks like the UK is paying for an FTA we will see it all kick off very quickly again.

 

Oink

Edited December 8, 2017 by ENG601PM

[Flexo]

I wonder if some people are finally beginning to realise that the EU that citizens and business want is a simple (in concept) open borders travel, trade, and standards community, not ever the closer union that the EUrofacist politicians want.

 

Yes, and that would mean that the UK's current position is optimal.

 

The UK has already excluded itself from "ever closer union" and is included in the other stuff.

 

"1. It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-factbox/full-text-of-eus-special-status-deal-for-britain-idUKKCN0VS2SH

[I1L2T3]

So the EU is going to get the equivalent of 8 years of U.K. funding in the space of 2 years.

 

Can anybody explain how that is going to result in a funding crisis in the EU any time soon

[melthebell]

I wonder if some people are finally beginning to realise that the EU that citizens and business want is a simple (in concept) open borders travel, trade, and standards community, not ever the closer union that the EUrofacist politicians want.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2017 at 12:38 ----------

 

 

It's not what RJRB claimed though.

 

 

There is no reasoned argument beyond settling the accounts. After all, Canada didn't pay a penny for an FTA. If it looks like the UK is paying for an FTA we will see it all kick off very quickly again.

 

Oink

i didnt know Canada was in the EU Oo

[ENG601PM]

i didnt know Canada was in the EU Oo

 

Errr. Yeahhh..... it's not.... you didn't actually think that I did did you?

 

[chalga]

Errr. Yeahhh..... it's not.... you didn't actually think that I did did you?

 

 

So Canada don't get to pay for commitments they already signed up to with the EU.

[L00b]

It's not what RJRB claimed though.

Now, just how did I know, that you were going to take an anal-retentive magnifier to the wording of RJRB's earlier post?

 

By forestalling the scrutiny with a clarification and link, that's how

There is no reasoned argument beyond settling the accounts. After all, Canada didn't pay a penny for an FTA. If it looks like the UK is paying for an FTA we will see it all kick off very quickly again.

The UK is not paying for an FTA.

 

Any new payments (beyond those settling the accounts) for the period 2019-end of transition, will be for maintaining the enhanced (maintained, basically) level of access to the SM which the UK wants to keep during the transition period.

 

Any new payments after that transition ends, will be for maintaining any degree of enhanced level of access to the SM, which the UK wants to keep after the transition and beyond the level of access which a DCFTA like the Canada deal provides.

 

You pays your money, you gets your service. You don't pays your money, you get Canada and that's your lot.

 

Would you be happy with a Canada-like DCFTA, ENG?

Edited December 8, 2017 by L00b

[hobinfoot]

I've just listened to Keir Stamer. He said that Labour wanted to stay in the single market and customs union but he can't or won't explain how this can be achieved without freedom of movement.

[L00b]

I've just listened to Keir Stamer. He said that Labour wanted to stay in the single market and customs union but he can't or won't explain how this can be achieved without freedom of movement.

It's possible with CU membership (see e.g. Turkish precedent, no FoM as such for Turks), but it's impossible or SM membership, since FoM of people is a fundamental pillar of the SM (together with FoM of goods/capital/etc.)

 

The easy fudge is in the UK (finally-) implementing the restrictions on EU immigration, which it could freely implement for the past x number of years (and I'm talking decades here), but misrepresenting that implementation as "concessions by the EU", "a win from Brussels", another "exception for UK" <etc. insert similar political guff to the effect, for pacifying/placating public opinion taken in by populism>.

Edited December 8, 2017 by L00b