Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Whitey Grandad]

we'll still leave though

 

Politically, yes. Econonmically, who the fook knows.

 

We'll be Norway. Congrats.

 

That would be ok. I'd still like my little blue flag with gold stars on my driving licence and number plate please.

[ecuk268]

So Gove supported Boris then, after shafting him, supported Leadsome and now said that he will give his full support to May.

 

Hope she wears a stab-proof vest when Michael's around.

[buctootim]

Politically, yes. Econonmically, who the fook knows.

 

 

 

That would be ok. I'd still like my little blue flag with gold stars on my driving licence and number plate please.

 

Thats pretty much what it will come down to. We'll still have the single market, free movement of labour, have to abide by EU legislation and contribute to the budget - but will no longer have any say or vote. On the plus side we can have the Union Jack on our passports and driving licences. Yay!

[derry]

May has been fenced in by a strong Brexit vote which will be reflected by a powerful representation in the cabinet and the negotiations led by Brexit supporters. We can now get on with it now rather than waste another two months. It won't be Norway, Canada or even Switzerland but it will be out and immigration will be restricted.

[Whitey Grandad]

May has been fenced in by a strong Brexit vote which will be reflected by a powerful representation in the cabinet and the negotiations led by Brexit supporters. We can now get on with it now rather than waste another two months. It won't be Norway, Canada or even Switzerland but it will be out and immigration will be restricted.

 

Strong Brexit vote? Where did you see this? The country is split down the middle and the MPs (who are more representative) are strongly Remain.

 

The only bargaining card we have is to delay Article 50. Once that is triggered then whatever we get offered is take it or leave it, no negotiating whatsoever. Being outside the Single Market is so disastrously unthinkable that some middle way will have to be found before we light the exit fuse.

[Guided Missile]

Strong Brexit vote? Where did you see this? The country is split down the middle and the MPs (who are more representative) are strongly Remain.

 

The only bargaining card we have is to delay Article 50. Once that is triggered then whatever we get offered is take it or leave it, no negotiating whatsoever. Being outside the Single Market is so disastrously unthinkable that some middle way will have to be found before we light the exit fuse.

Complete load of alarmist b0ll0x.

Once that is triggered then whatever we get offered is take it or leave it, no negotiating whatsoever.

- Fool.....

 

I'd change your posting image to one of these:

 

 

[buctootim]

Complete load of alarmist b0ll0x. - Fool.....

 

I'd change your posting image to one of these:

 

 

 

Says the man who's scared Deutsche is going bust owing 50 times the GDP of Germany. #figureoffun

[derry]

Theresa May has one major problem, it may have been overlooked but she can't govern without the Brexit MPs supporting her in Parliament. Therefore we are coming out and it really doesn't matter if we don't have a deal with the EU. It's probably the neatest split anyway. Better to play hard ball if they don't want to deal rather than capitulate as some on here would rather see. I think it is better to be Britain first and the EU wherever they want to be.

[Whitey Grandad]

Complete load of alarmist b0ll0x. - Fool.....

 

I'd change your posting image to one of these:

 

 

 

What is not true in what I wrote? It is clear from your responses that you don't understand the process of withdrawal from the EU.

 

And I really don't see what connection there is to a comic character who has been defunct for nearly 40 years, in fact almost as long as we have been in the EU. 'We're f*cked' is a more accurate description. Cassandra warned about the destruction of Troy. That turned out well didn't it?

[Whitey Grandad]

Theresa May has one major problem, it may have been overlooked but she can't govern without the Brexit MPs supporting her in Parliament. Therefore we are coming out and it really doesn't matter if we don't have a deal with the EU. It's probably the neatest split anyway. Better to play hard ball if they don't want to deal rather than capitulate as some on here would rather see. I think it is better to be Britain first and the EU wherever they want to be.

 

The other Remain MPs would support any related issues.If she doesn't get the support of enough MPs to govern then there'll be an election before a Brexit.

 

I don't think you fully understand the difficulties of a life under WTO MFN rules.

Edited 11 July, 2016 by Whitey Grandad

[badgerx16]

 

I don't think you fully understand the difficulties of a life under WTO MFN rules.

But at least we got our country back.

[Whitey Grandad]

But at least we got our country back.

 

Yes but which one?

[ecuk268]

Strong Brexit vote? Where did you see this? The country is split down the middle and the MPs (who are more representative) are strongly Remain.

 

The only bargaining card we have is to delay Article 50. Once that is triggered then whatever we get offered is take it or leave it, no negotiating whatsoever. Being outside the Single Market is so disastrously unthinkable that some middle way will have to be found before we light the exit fuse.

 

I think that you're a bit muddled there. Invoking Article 50 signals the start of formal negotiations. There is then a 2-year period at the end of which we leave.

 

As existing EU legislation will no longer apply, we will need new laws and regulations to take their place and they will require the approval of parliament.

 

As there is a pro-EU majority in the Commons and the Lords, we'll probably end up with something similar to what we have already but by a different name.

[Window Cleaner]

I think that you're a bit muddled there. Invoking Article 50 signals the start of formal negotiations. There is then a 2-year period at the end of which we leave.

 

As existing EU legislation will no longer apply, we will need new laws and regulations to take their place and they will require the approval of parliament.

 

As there is a pro-EU majority in the Commons and the Lords, we'll probably end up with something similar to what we have already but by a different name.

 

 

Maximum 2 year period, could be a week, could be 729 days, could be extended beyond that if there agreement to do so by all parties concerned. The E.U are going to try to screw a maximum out of the UK and the UK is going to try to screw a maximum out of the E.U; At the end of the day the E.U will probably cave in ...because that's what they do. Can you imagine Poland suddenly finding new work for their 2 million repatriated citizens..probably not. Having a low unemployment rate is a powerful weapon.

Edited 11 July, 2016 by Window Cleaner

[badgerx16]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36764945

 

"The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said negotiations between the UK and the rest of the EU on leaving the bloc will not be easy."

 

"In a television interview on Sunday night, the German chancellor said Britain would not be able to "cherry-pick" the bits of the EU it wants, and leave out those it does not."

[Whitey Grandad]

I think that you're a bit muddled there. Invoking Article 50 signals the start of formal negotiations. There is then a 2-year period at the end of which we leave.

 

As existing EU legislation will no longer apply, we will need new laws and regulations to take their place and they will require the approval of parliament.

 

As there is a pro-EU majority in the Commons and the Lords, we'll probably end up with something similar to what we have already but by a different name.

 

The negotiations go like this:

 

We tell them what we'd like.

They go away and talk amongst themselves.

They come back and tell us what we'll get.

Game over.

 

We'd be leaving whatever. Once we trigger A50 we will have left within two years.

[Wade Garrett]

The negotiations go like this:

 

We tell them what we'd like.

They go away and talk amongst themselves.

They come back and tell us what we'll get.

Game over.

 

We'd be leaving whatever. Once we trigger A50 we will have left within two years.

 

Glad you're not negotiating on our behalf!

[Whitey Grandad]

Glad you're not negotiating on our behalf!

 

There is no negotiating once A50 is triggered. That's why it hasn't been triggered yet. It is unclear whether it is possible or feasible to change our minds after we have invoked it but once set in motion what negotiating power do we have? They will just say 'this is what you'll get' and if you don't like it, so what? We can't change our minds and remain, certainly not without the approval of the other member states. A further complication is that there can only be informal talks until formal notice is given.

 

There's some discussion here:

 

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

 

And one view here. I tend to agree with the first part about responsibilities.

 

http://www.reformist.org/blog/eu-referendum/

[CB Fry]

There is no negotiating once A50 is triggered. That's why it hasn't been triggered yet. It is unclear whether it is possible or feasible to change our minds after we have invoked it but once set in motion what negotiating power do we have? They will just say 'this is what you'll get' and if you don't like it, so what? We can't change our minds and remain, certainly not without the approval of the other member states. A further complication is that there can only be informal talks until formal notice is given.

 

There's some discussion here:

 

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

 

And one view here. I tend to agree with the first part about responsibilities.

 

http://www.reformist.org/blog/eu-referendum/

Don't be ridiculous. We have plenty of negotiating power and obviously there will be negotiations post A-50. We negotiated all the time on loads of things with the EU when we were in it, as do other EU countries, so why would it stop now we're out?

 

If anything it is the Superbowl of global negotiations, possibly one of the most complex multi-lateral negotiations the world will have ever seen. It's going to be fascinating stuff.

 

I really think you need to join in and stop trying to rerun the referendum over and over. It's over and as PM TM said today, it's up to us to make a success of it.

[Verbal]

I wonder if the Brexiteers' dogmatism totally excludes the possibility that even they may have a re-think, especially if the outcome of Brexit talks gets practically nowhere and seems on balance a backward step.

 

Given the EU's red lines, and the Tories' twin desires to be in the internal market and to 'control' immigration, the outcome of negotiations may look broadly like this:

 

1. Access to the internal market, but only on terms offered to other non-EU countries with access. This will mean that the UK's contribution to the EU budget will be calculated as it is now, but without the rebate. So the costs of access to the internal market will be higher - they really will be £350m a week - than they are currently while we remain in the EU.

 

2. Access to the internal market means signing up to the 'four freedoms'. At no point have the EU ever conceded substantial ground on this. One of those freedoms of course is free movement of people. Therefore no immigration controls for people from EU member states, although we will probably be able to negotiate something like the Norwegian rules, which don't amount to a whole lot:

 

http://www.lifeinnorway.net/move/immigration/immigration-europe/

 

In truth, we could probably negotiate the Norwegian rules and remain in the EU.

 

3. The City retains its passporting privileges. As the continued financial health of the City is likely to be essential to the UK's negotiating position, the EU will have a lot of leverage on a liberal interpretation of the other freedoms, including freedom of movement for people - much more than say Norway.

 

3. No participation in an EU army. Again, we could negotiate this now and remain EU members, and there's no certainty that it'll happen anyway.

 

4. No voting rights within the EU, including on matters like enlargement. So while the UK government can presently veto the EU membership of Turkey, for example,it won't be able to post-Brexit, and, because of freedom of movement, will have no power to prevent Turkish citizens coming into the country if Turkey does join (the latter which I still find highly unlikely).

 

5. The UK is bound by EU trade agreements. This will place limits of negotiable strength on the UK's ability to negotiate independently elsewhere. Of course, non-EU countries negotiating trade agreements with the UK will be wary of granting the UK better trading terms than those available to EU states - the EU is the big gorilla and the stand-alone UK the mouse in all this.

 

Once this has all been explained to the British electorate, minus the ravings of the now-exited Brexit leaders, what do you think their reaction will be? It'll be worth it to pay more, with less say, to lose yet more control over immigration?

 

Much could (and will) happen in the time it takes to trigger Article 50 and for negotiations to really begin. We could see the end of Jean-Claude Juncker, whom Merkel wants out, and therefore the his peculiar (and personally rather unpleasant) brand of Euro-fundamentalism. We may even see the a currency crisis (although the Eurozone has survived through pretty terminal-seeming crises so far).

 

And of course we don't actually know anything concrete yet about the British government's negotiating position. Despite the fact that Brexit is the most complex and largest administrative challenge to the British civil service since rearmament in the 1930s, it's actually quite stunning that the political planning (as opposed to the BoE's economic planning) for Brexit has been practically non-existent. As we now know, this planning is now firmly in the hands of Remaina May, with her meaningless 'Brexit means Brexit' slogan (change the noun to something like 'Biscuits means biscuits' and you get the idea). And as Brexiteers are probably dimly aware, the moral force of the referendum goes off with time - if 'a week is a long time in politics', as Harold Wilson famously said, what's two-plus years?

[moonraker]

Maximum 2 year period, could be a week, could be 729 days, could be extended beyond that if there agreement to do so by all parties concerned. The E.U are going to try to screw a maximum out of the UK and the UK is going to try to screw a maximum out of the E.U; At the end of the day the E.U will probably cave in ...because that's what they do. Can you imagine Poland suddenly finding new work for their 2 million repatriated citizens..probably not. Having a low unemployment rate is a powerful weapon.

 

Where di 2 million poles come from there are 750k in the UK.

[Hockey_saint]

I wonder if the Brexiteers' dogmatism totally excludes the possibility that even they may have a re-think, especially if the outcome of Brexit talks gets practically nowhere and seems on balance a backward step.

 

Given the EU's red lines, and the Tories' twin desires to be in the internal market and to 'control' immigration, the outcome of negotiations may look broadly like this:

 

1. Access to the internal market, but only on terms offered to other non-EU countries with access. This will mean that the UK's contribution to the EU budget will be calculated as it is now, but without the rebate. So the costs of access to the internal market will be higher - they really will be £350m a week - than they are currently while we remain in the EU.

 

2. Access to the internal market means signing up to the 'four freedoms'. At no point have the EU ever conceded substantial ground on this. One of those freedoms of course is free movement of people. Therefore no immigration controls for people from EU member states, although we will probably be able to negotiate something like the Norwegian rules, which don't amount to a whole lot:

 

http://www.lifeinnorway.net/move/immigration/immigration-europe/

 

In truth, we could probably negotiate the Norwegian rules and remain in the EU.

 

3. The City retains its passporting privileges. As the continued financial health of the City is likely to be essential to the UK's negotiating position, the EU will have a lot of leverage on a liberal interpretation of the other freedoms, including freedom of movement for people - much more than say Norway.

 

3. No participation in an EU army. Again, we could negotiate this now and remain EU members, and there's no certainty that it'll happen anyway.

 

4. No voting rights within the EU, including on matters like enlargement. So while the UK government can presently veto the EU membership of Turkey, for example,it won't be able to post-Brexit, and, because of freedom of movement, will have no power to prevent Turkish citizens coming into the country if Turkey does join (the latter which I still find highly unlikely).

 

5. The UK is bound by EU trade agreements. This will place limits of negotiable strength on the UK's ability to negotiate independently elsewhere. Of course, non-EU countries negotiating trade agreements with the UK will be wary of granting the UK better trading terms than those available to EU states - the EU is the big gorilla and the stand-alone UK the mouse in all this.

 

Once this has all been explained to the British electorate, minus the ravings of the now-exited Brexit leaders, what do you think their reaction will be? It'll be worth it to pay more, with less say, to lose yet more control over immigration?

 

Much could (and will) happen in the time it takes to trigger Article 50 and for negotiations to really begin. We could see the end of Jean-Claude Juncker, whom Merkel wants out, and therefore the his peculiar (and personally rather unpleasant) brand of Euro-fundamentalism. We may even see the a currency crisis (although the Eurozone has survived through pretty terminal-seeming crises so far).

 

And of course we don't actually know anything concrete yet about the British government's negotiating position. Despite the fact that Brexit is the most complex and largest administrative challenge to the British civil service since rearmament in the 1930s, it's actually quite stunning that the political planning (as opposed to the BoE's economic planning) for Brexit has been practically non-existent. As we now know, this planning is now firmly in the hands of Remaina May, with her meaningless 'Brexit means Brexit' slogan (change the noun to something like 'Biscuits means biscuits' and you get the idea). And as Brexiteers are probably dimly aware, the moral force of the referendum goes off with time - if 'a week is a long time in politics', as Harold Wilson famously said, what's two-plus years?

 

Of course they'll have to re-think.

 

Ah, Harold Wilson, the only PM in semi-recent times to stand up to the US and say no to sending troops (shame Tony Blair was too gutless to do that)...Then again, he also said to Ian Douglas Smith "we don't want Rhodesia to leave, but we'll send absolutely no forces to stop you"...yeah...that worked. Sorry, I digress. I understand why people voted to leave, I really do but I think people forget just how manipulative politicians are. For example, they know full well, lines like "taking back control" can mean one thing to one group and another entirely to another so did they expect the amount of hate crimes we've had? They must have known it was on the table.

 

No, I'd love to see an independent Britain, doing deals around the world but come on, let's live in the modern world eh? That's never gonna happen is it? globalisation is here to stay and as Super Mac said, we're either with or we allow the winds of change to sweep right past us. Either way, come on, it really does appear to be an absolute cowardfest in the leave camp at the minute,

[Whitey Grandad]

Don't be ridiculous. We have plenty of negotiating power and obviously there will be negotiations post A-50. We negotiated all the time on loads of things with the EU when we were in it, as do other EU countries, so why would it stop now we're out?

 

If anything it is the Superbowl of global negotiations, possibly one of the most complex multi-lateral negotiations the world will have ever seen. It's going to be fascinating stuff.

 

I really think you need to join in and stop trying to rerun the referendum over and over. It's over and as PM TM said today, it's up to us to make a success of it.

 

The dice really are loaded in their favour. Whatever they come up with we can either walk away from the table or... ...we can leave the EU. What are we going to do, threaten not to leave? The negotiations of which you speak would not take place for several years and can only officially begin once we have actually left. In the meantime there will be one big mess of uncertainty.

 

Where have I said that we should re-run the referendum? My reading of the situation is that the eventual settlement will need some form of public mandate and approval.

 

Don't expect me to try to make a success of it, I'm far too old.

[Guided Missile]

Joining the EU has been a real success for Italy:

 

Italy's economy will not return to the levels seen before the 2008 financial crisis until the mid-2020s, the IMF has said, implying "two lost decades". By the mid-2020s, it says the economies of other eurozone members will be 20-25% larger than levels seen in 2008. The Fund's comments came as it cut its growth forecasts for the eurozone's third largest economy. It now expects Italy's economy to grow by less than 1% this year, compared with an earlier estimate of 1.1%. The IMF also cut its growth forecast for 2017 to about 1% from 1.25%. Italy has an unemployment rate of 11% and a banking sector in crisis, with government debt second only to that of Greece. Italian banks are weighed down by massive bad debts, and may need a significant injection of funds.

 

Read more here and be thankful we won't have to help bail them out, with all the rest. Safer in? You're having a laugh. The IMF also now expects the eurozone's economy to grow by 1.6% this year and 1.4% in 2017. Before the referendum the IMF had predicted growth of 1.7% for both years. Arma-fúckín-geddon....

[Wes Tender]

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-referendum-binding.shtml

 

For all of those who harbour forlorn hopes that some sort of legal challenge can be made against the validity of the referendum, or that it was merely advisory.

[buctootim]

The IMF also now expects the eurozone's economy to grow by 1.6% this year and 1.4% in 2017. Arma-fúckín-geddon....

 

More than Britain then.

[moonraker]

Interesting to note that it appears support for anti-EU parties across the EU is falling as citizens of the other 27 see the chaos in the UK by a Brexit vote.

[Window Cleaner]

Aren't the EU commission going to duck out of actually sanctioning Spain and Portugal for budget deficit targets not met again today? Normally they should be both heavily fined but another slap on the wrist each seems to be more likely.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Those who seek to place the blame for Italy's woes at the door of the EU might want to explain why it is then other EU members - such as Poland for example - are somehow experiencing very strong growth rates.

[Johnny Bognor]

Those who seek to place the blame for Italy's woes at the door of the EU might want to explain why it is then other EU members - such as Poland for example - are somehow experiencing very strong growth rates.

 

It's more to do with the Euro than the EU.... a complete basket case idea from the beginning.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It's more to do with the Euro than the EU.... a complete basket case idea from the beginning.

 

I'm inclined to agree - being in the Single Market, but outside of the Single Currancy, is not a bad place to be. I understand that included in the terms of their EU membership agreement Poland is obliged at some point in the future to scrap its currency and join the Euro.

 

That'll be a somewhat 'interesting' matter for the Poles to contemplate.

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm inclined to agree - being in the Single Market, but outside of the Single Currancy, is not a bad place to be. I understand that included in the terms of their EU membership agreement Poland is obliged at some point in the future to scrap its currency and join the Euro.

 

That'll be a somewhat 'interesting' matter for the Poles to contemplate.

 

But whilst it is down to the Euro, as opposed to the EU, we would still be expected to help clear up the mess.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But whilst it is down to the Euro, as opposed to the EU, we would still be expected to help clear up the mess.

 

Well the point is a moot one now that we are leaving the EU. Nevetheless, I was under the impression that the UK was specifically exempted from any eurozone bailout efforts. Should any EU nation apply to the IMF for support however then we would still be obliged to contribute of course.

[buctootim]

I was under the impression that the UK was specifically exempted from any eurozone bailout efforts.

 

We are. Its one of the leave scare stories which has taken root.

[van Hanegem]

Those who seek to place the blame for Italy's woes at the door of the EU might want to explain why it is then other EU members - such as Poland for example - are somehow experiencing very strong growth rates.

 

I'm not blaming the EU for the financial crisis in Italy as the Italians caused this by themselves, I'm just afraid taxpayers from Northern Europe will have to bleed again in order to help the banks to survive. It's not just the Italian banks that are in trouble Charlie, before you know the French banks are also in need. Again... We've put billions and billions of euro's already in those banks after the crisis in 2008, meanwhile the Dutch government is cutting down on healthcare, education, care for the elderly and so on. We were used to retire at 65, now we have to go on until we are 67 and I expect that soon I'll have to go on till I'm 70... Well, as long as the EU is able to keep up the financial system I guess I better not complain?

[Guided Missile]

We are. Its one of the leave scare stories which has taken root.

The reality is a bit more complicated than that, which is why the referendum decision was so difficult to explain:

The UK can be asked for financial support for Eurozone countries but is guaranteed its money back

The UK contributes to a fund which could be used to channel emergency funding to Eurozone countries, but an EU law made in 2015 ensures that the UK would be “immediately and fully compensated” for any losses caused by a Eurozone member. This protection was reasserted in the UK government’s EU renegotiation deal in February 2016, which also states that the UK will be reimbursed if the EU’s general budget is used to support emergency funding for Eurozone members. The British government may still choose to offer support to Eurozone countries in future if it believes it is in the UK’s own interests, as it did with Ireland in 2010. The UK is also indirectly liable for emergency support to Eurozone countries offered by the International Monetary Fund, an obligation which is separate from the UK’s membership of the EU.

 

The UK is not liable through existing emergency funding schemes.

 

The EU can answer new requests for emergency support by Eurozone countries using two permanent funds in future, confusingly named the European Stability Mechanism and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism. The European Stability Mechanism is funded by Eurozone countries only, so the UK has nothing to do with it. The UK does contribute to the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, which can be used to support all EU countries. This doesn’t require the UK to lend directly to other countries. Instead, the fund borrows money on the open market and lends it to EU members requesting emergency financial assistance, using the EU budget as collateral. If the country that receives the loans can’t repay them itself, then they’re repaid out of the EU budget. This creates a shortfall in funding for regular projects, so it is filled by extra contributions from other EU members. The UK would contribute 13% of this extra funding, in proportion to its share of regular contributions to the EU budget. The European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism can be, and has been, used to fund emergency support for Eurozone countries. The UK can’t veto this from happening because funding is allocated through a qualified majority vote. This happened with Greece in July 2015, even though European leaders had agreed that this fund shouldn’t be used to bail out Eurozone countries in future. However, the UK was protected from bearing any costs if Greece defaulted on the loan. The law setting up the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism was then changed to make this the case for any future loans:

“Where the beneficiary Member State is a Member State whose currency is the euro, the granting of Union financial assistance shall be conditional upon the enactment of legally binding provisions, with a dedicated arrangement for that purpose having been put in place prior to disbursement, guaranteeing that the Member States whose currency is not the euro are immediately and fully compensated for any liability they may incur as a result of any failure by the beneficiary Member State to repay the financial assistance in accordance with its terms.”

 

Council Regulation Amendment, 4 August 2015

 

In other words, the UK will not have to pay the costs of any Eurozone bailout funding provided through the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism. The UK government’s negotiations in February 2016 also stipulated that the UK would be reimbursed for any additional costs to the EU’s general budget created when emergency funding was provided to Eurozone states, other than administrative costs.

It is not impossible for the UK to become liable in the future

 

Despite these agreements, the Leave campaign argues that the UK could still be liable for contributing to funds which support Eurozone members in future. Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union says that the EU may offer emergency financial support to member countries:

“Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council… may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned.”

 

The EU could theoretically use this power to “grant ad hoc financial assistance to a Member State” in the future, in the words of the EU court. The EU deal negotiated in February doesn’t change the treaties, so its guarantee that bailouts “will not entail budgetary responsibility for Member States whose currency is not the euro” might not be accepted by the court. So it might be technically possible, if unlikely in practice, for the EU to bypass the dedicated Eurozone bailout fund and the all-EU fund—neither of which put British money at risk—and call upon the EU budget directly.

 

 

By Conor James McKinney and Richard Braham

 

The British taxpayers provided Ireland with a backdoor bail-out of more than £14bn via the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, together with £7bn in Government loans, when their economy went t!ts up in 2008-2009. I'm sure the Irish Nationalists will show their gratitude to the UK Government in their customary manner....

[Window Cleaner]

I'm not blaming the EU for the financial crisis in Italy as the Italians caused this by themselves, I'm just afraid taxpayers from Northern Europe will have to bleed again in order to help the banks to survive. It's not just the Italian banks that are in trouble Charlie, before you know the French banks are also in need. Again... We've put billions and billions of euro's already in those banks after the crisis in 2008, meanwhile the Dutch government is cutting down on healthcare, education, care for the elderly and so on. We were used to retire at 65, now we have to go on until we are 67 and I expect that soon I'll have to go on till I'm 70... Well, as long as the EU is able to keep up the financial system I guess I better not complain?

 

Well I was going to describe the Italian economy as a perpetual train wreck but perhaps I'd better not do that today.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm not blaming the EU for the financial crisis in Italy as the Italians caused this by themselves, I'm just afraid taxpayers from Northern Europe will have to bleed again in order to help the banks to survive. It's not just the Italian banks that are in trouble Charlie, before you know the French banks are also in need. Again... We've put billions and billions of euro's already in those banks after the crisis in 2008, meanwhile the Dutch government is cutting down on healthcare, education, care for the elderly and so on. We were used to retire at 65, now we have to go on until we are 67 and I expect that soon I'll have to go on till I'm 70... Well, as long as the EU is able to keep up the financial system I guess I better not complain?

 

Well I don't suppose it will be much of a consolation my friend, but we here in the UK are experiencing the very same ongoing extension of the state retirement age process - the justification for this being that longer average life expectancy allows this economy measure.

 

For example I already have had - without ever being asked or consulted mind you - two years added to my working life and a further review is now underway that will probably add yet another year on top of that. Methinks that our Government would be quite happy if the day you retire, and the day you die, could all be arranged to take place in the same week!

 

This stinks of course because many will not now live long enough to reach the state retirement age. Furthermore, we don't all enjoy relativly sedate working lives sat on our backsides in a office somewhere. But short of making sure you win the national lottery there does not seem to be a single thing the average working man can do about any of this.

[moonraker]

The reality is a bit more complicated than that, which is why the referendum decision was so difficult to explain:

 

 

The British taxpayers provided Ireland with a backdoor bail-out of more than £14bn via the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, together with £7bn in Government loans, when their economy went t!ts up in 2008-2009. I'm sure the Irish Nationalists will show their gratitude to the UK Government in their customary manner....

 

The Irish economy is now amongst the strongest in the EU with high growth and record low unemployment. What is termed bailout was in reality investment, an investemnt in a key trading partner. The back door reffered to was via UK banks to their Irish subsidies. Banking is a global business and UK banks are major players and earn the UK a fortune despite the banking crises, I dont hear many complaints about the same back door bailout for an Australian Bank by the UK Banks! What would you have done differently and how would this have benefitted the UK economy?

[van Hanegem]

Well I was going to describe the Italian economy as a perpetual train wreck but perhaps I'd better not do that today.

 

I know, just like the Greeks the Italians like to spend money they don't have and paying taxes is not an issue over there, they just avoid it. A couple of years ago economists were talking about splitting the euro in a "Neuro" for the countries in Northern Europe and a "Zeuro" for the countries in Southern Europe in order to prevent the downfall of the euro. Still seems a good idea to me...

Edited 12 July, 2016 by van Hanegem

[Verbal]

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-referendum-binding.shtml

 

For all of those who harbour forlorn hopes that some sort of legal challenge can be made against the validity of the referendum, or that it was merely advisory.

 

This is meshugge, Lord Tender - completely ferplunjit. The legal cases are about how Article 50 is triggered, whether by royal prerogative or by Parliament. They've got nothing to do with hopeless arguments about whether or not the referendum is binding. Even the most rabid of Leadsom's supporters don't think that, and Leadsom's own campaign manager believes that it should be done by Act of parliament.

 

Have you got someone in your house who can help you with your posts? Because you seem very Fertummelt.

 

Meanwhile, here's a cartoon for you to stare at:

 

https://twitter.com/BlackHalt/status/752814885537509376

[Whitey Grandad]

This is meshugge, Lord Tender - completely ferplunjit. The legal cases are about how Article 50 is triggered, whether by royal prerogative or by Parliament. They've got nothing to do with hopeless arguments about whether or not the referendum is binding. Even the most rabid of Leadsom's supporters don't think that, and Leadsom's own campaign manager believes that it should be done by Act of parliament.

 

Have you got someone in your house who can help you with your posts? Because you seem very Fertummelt.

 

Meanwhile, here's a cartoon for you to stare at:

 

https://twitter.com/BlackHalt/status/752814885537509376

 

Thanks, Verbal. I always try to learn a new word every day and now you've given me two

[van Hanegem]

Well I don't suppose it will be much of a consolation my friend, but we here in the UK are experiencing the very same ongoing extension of the state retirement age process - the justification for this being that longer average life expectancy allows this economy measure.

 

For example I already have had - without ever being asked or consulted mind you - two years added to my working life and a further review is now underway that will probably add yet another year on top of that. Methinks that our Government would be quite happy if the day you retire, and the day you die, could all be arranged to take place in the same week!

 

This stinks of course because many will not now live long enough to reach the state retirement age. Furthermore, we don't all enjoy relativly sedate working lives sat on our backsides in a office somewhere. But short of making sure you win the national lottery there does not seem to be a single thing the average working man can do about any of this.

 

Yup, it's the same here and indeed, it's no consolation to me... I guess I should have moved to France to become a civil servant, 35 hours a week, better paycheck than anywhere else in Europe and quitting at 62. No wonder 25% (!) of the workforce in France is civil servant... Good for them but I don't want to contribute when their economy goes bust.

Edited 12 July, 2016 by van Hanegem

[moonraker]

I know, just like the Greeks the Italians like to spend money they don't have and paying taxes is not an issue over there, they just avoid it. A couple of years ago economist were talking about splitting the euro in a "Neuro" for the countries in Northern Europe and a "Zeuro" for the countries in Southern Europe in order to prevent the downfall of the euro. Still seems a good idea to me...

 

Agree, the Mediterranean countries have a fundamentally different attitude to their duties and responsibilities as citizens. They are masters at waving the flag and demonstrating their patriotism, but when it comes to paying their taxes and contributing for the greater good they all become very shy. Their governments and politicians are incapable of enforcing their own laws. While I am in favour of the EU it is these cultural and political divides that cause such resentment amongst the electorates of the Northern European states where paying ones taxes is accepted and adhered to by the vast majority. The idea of a parallel currency system is interesting but on the face of seems impracticable. The Euro was founded on deceits and falsifications to which the Commission and Politicians turned a blind eye, indeed encouraged, to ensure their vision of an EU wide currency could be delivered, it is by far the greatest error and deceit ever perpetrated by the EU.

[Window Cleaner]

Yup, it's the same here and indeed, it's no consolation to me... I guess I should have moved to France to become a civil servant, 35 hours a week, better paycheck than anywhere else in Europe and quitting at 62. No wonder 25% (!) of the workforce in France is civil servant... Good for them but I don't want to contribute when their economy goes bust.

 

You can't just quit at 62 if you don't have the required number of trimesters of contributions though. You need 42 years of paying through the nose before you can touch the state pactole which is based on how much you've paid in the private sector and 75% of you're final salary in the public sector. Oh and the civil service is in the main closed to all non-nationals. there are exceptions though few and far between.

[derry]

Probably a guide to how things will go with the EU is it's failure to close out deals with major countries. The Article 50 is a unique situation for the EU. At the end of two years we are out if we want. The EU can extend it if they want but not if we don't want. Probably so we can get on with our lives we should repeal the 1972 act and take the EU out of our laws. Triggering article 50 and negotiating in parallel with talking to countries that want deals outside the EU.

 

Negotiating with the EU is a two way street and if there is no agreement, which I'm sure there won't be inside two years unless either cave in. The Conservatives can't because a majority of it's voters are for leave. The next election would be a definite loss if they can't satisfy their voters with the outcome. They are totally boxed in. Anything else is wishful thinking.

[moonraker]

Probably a guide to how things will go with the EU is it's failure to close out deals with major countries. The Article 50 is a unique situation for the EU. At the end of two years we are out if we want. The EU can extend it if they want but not if we don't want. Probably so we can get on with our lives we should repeal the 1972 act and take the EU out of our laws. Triggering article 50 and negotiating in parallel with talking to countries that want deals outside the EU.

 

Negotiating with the EU is a two way street and if there is no agreement, which I'm sure there won't be inside two years unless either cave in. The Conservatives can't because a majority of it's voters are for leave. The next election would be a definite loss if they can't satisfy their voters with the outcome. They are totally boxed in. Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

Bit pedantic but only 38% are for leave 35% are for remains and the rest dont give a toss.

[Wes Tender]

This is meshugge, Lord Tender - completely ferplunjit. The legal cases are about how Article 50 is triggered, whether by royal prerogative or by Parliament. They've got nothing to do with hopeless arguments about whether or not the referendum is binding. Even the most rabid of Leadsom's supporters don't think that, and Leadsom's own campaign manager believes that it should be done by Act of parliament.

 

Have you got someone in your house who can help you with your posts? Because you seem very Fertummelt.

 

Meanwhile, here's a cartoon for you to stare at:

 

https://twitter.com/BlackHalt/status/752814885537509376

 

Of course, it very easy to dismiss this sort of article as being rubbish in a couple of lines, simultaneously masturbating your ego, whilst not bothering to debate the points raised to prove your point.

 

How about you telling us where you think that these legal eagles have got it wrong?

 

And whilst you're pondering it all, here's a little light entertainment for you:-

 

[moonraker]

Of course, it very easy to dismiss this sort of article as being rubbish in a couple of lines, simultaneously masturbating your ego, whilst not bothering to debate the points raised to prove your point.

 

How about you telling us where you think that these legal eagles have got it wrong?

 

And whilst you're pondering it all, here's a little light entertainment for you:-

 

 

Back from the day centre, how was the Bingo?

[Wes Tender]

Back from the day centre, how was the Bingo?

 

What? No big words to inflate the impression that you are as clever as Verbal Diarrhoea thinks he is from using them?

 

And how did you enjoy Kindergarten this morning?