Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

Because we agreed to fund things beyond 2019.

The idiocy of David Cameron knowns no bounds.

David Cameron has nothing to do with that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The idiocy of David Cameron knowns no bounds.

But... you're talking about how we have no vision... and then complaining that we're committing to projects that last more than 2 years.

Which one is it you want? Big vision means committing to things that take time. Short-termism (not looking beyond 2 years or the next election term) is why we're so far behind in almost every way.

How long do you think the Heathrow runway you're banging on about will take to do? Should we commit to doing that or just commit to the first 2 years of it? I know you'll come back with "we could do it in a month without all that regulation" but you need to be pragmatic; we have the regulation, we need to "get over it" and start working on it.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe.
The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.

Questions for you:

1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The idiocy of David Cameron knowns no bounds.

But... you're talking about how we have no vision... and then complaining that we're committing to projects that last more than 2 years.

Which one is it you want? Big vision means committing to things that take time. Short-termism (not looking beyond 2 years or the next election term) is why we're so far behind in almost every way.

For all we know, Cameron might have agreed to fund the refurbishment of Juncker's office!

I think we can all agree that Cameron's judgement and political nous is not worth a bucket of horsegak.

But his, and anyone else, commitments need to be settled. We don't have much beyond our word at this stage; we can't come out of this looking untrustworthy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.

And what about the stuff we've committed to that runs beyond 2019?

To be realistic, the EU isn't looking for £60 billion. They want a firm assurance of a realistic sum and a schedule by which it will be paid. For one example, the UK's default contribution through to 2020 should be guaranteed, which the Maybot has said a number of times, so doesn't she just Do It?

This really is a very simple thing to do. The reason it isn't being done is because of people like the guys who are going "Hock" Shorror! EU Vapours!! £60 BILLION!!!" Yet, £60 B is only about 2% of UK GDP. It's certainly not trivial, but paid over the course of several years, it won't be noticed nearly so much as the drag on growth there is going to be from a hard Brexit.

We have widdled away our time. We have allowed the situation to come to the point that we need to resolve it in the next round of talks, because if we don't the EU goes on holiday until February, which means we won't get anything done until March, which is too late for industry and government agencies to make their plans for 2019.

They will therefore be compelled to plan for the worst situation, a Hard Brexit. Once the plans and money are committed to that, it's going to be very hard to turn it back.

The only way out would be to postpone Brexit for a year, maybe, and the Maybot has already announced the government's intention to legally pin it to March 2019, so that will not be able to happen.

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

They don't need to. They have all the cards.

Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe.
The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.

Questions for you:

1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.

You lose all claim to take inspiration from the greats of our history with this answer. Newton, Faraday and Brunel didn't just pluck random crap out of the air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

They don't need to. They have all the cards.

Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

Planning for no deal means shooting our country in the head. Our country cannot survive a no deal scenario.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?

Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddenly got tariffs and quotas on everything? Protests and civil unrest demanding we rejoin the EU ASAP?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

It's roughly our contributions for the next 7 years. Presumably that's what they feel we owe.
The figure is to cover our liabilities until (a) planned projects are completed, (b) the next budget cycle, or (c) the MEPs up until now cash out their pensions.

Questions for you:

1a. How much should we pay them?
1b. How can you justify that figure?

1. They can have £25 billion. Take it or leave it.

2. I justify that by thinking that's roughly what we owe them until 2019, which is when we leave, and a few billion quid thrown in for pensions and that nature park in Estonia we probably foolishly agreed to fund.

You lose all claim to take inspiration from the greats of our history with this answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So here's a question for EU supporters:

how can the EU justify a £60 billion price tag?

That's more than our budget contribution until 2019.

They don't need to. They have all the cards.

Are you surprised by this? At all? The negotiation is going exactly as pretty much the entire remain side said it would. To the letter. You might have just missed their predictions behind the wall of babbling about how they'd be offering us everything on a plate in the easiest negotiation ever because they need us more than we need them.

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

Planning for no deal means shooting our country in the head. Our country cannot survive a no deal scenario.

The EU reputation for largess is well known. Juncker's love of 5 star hotels and lavish meals at top restaurants, all bankrolled by the EU taxpayer, is well known.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU reputation for largess is well known. Juncker's love of 5 star hotels and lavish meals at top restaurants, all bankrolled by the EU taxpayer, is well known.

Whilst our politicians stay in £19 a night travellodges?

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If we walked away, and planned for a no deal, which is what I've been saying for months we should be doing, they would be holding no cards.

What about the little details. How do you imagine just walking away with no deal would look?

Massive tailbacks at the docks because we don't have a working customs infrastructure or enough staff? Food rotting in trucks because we can't get it to the continent quickly enough? Planes grounded because we don't have clearance to use EU airspace? Banks fleeing the country because they've been cut off from their customers? Rampant inflation because we've suddently got tariffs and quotas on everything?

The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.

Even the most diehard of Brexiteers and the most ardent EU supporters have said this would never happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU reputation for largess is well known. Juncker's love of 5 star hotels and lavish meals at top restaurants, all bankrolled by the EU taxpayer, is well known.

Whilst our politicians stay in £19 a night travellodges?

No, but our politicians can be voted out by the people who voted them in. Who can vote out Juncker, or Tusk, or even Barnier?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be realistic, the EU isn't looking for £60 billion. They want a firm assurance of a realistic sum and a schedule by which it will be paid. For one example, the UK's default contribution through to 2020 should be guaranteed, which the Maybot has said a number of times, so doesn't she just Do It?

This really is a very simple thing to do. The reason it isn't being done is because of people like the guys who are going "Hock" Shorror! EU Vapours!! £60 BILLION!!!" Yet, £60 B is only about 2% of UK GDP. It's certainly not trivial, but paid over the course of several years, it won't be noticed nearly so much as the drag on growth there is going to be from a hard Brexit.

We have widdled away our time. We have allowed the situation to come to the point that we need to resolve it in the next round of talks, because if we don't the EU goes on holiday until February, which means we won't get anything done until March, which is too late for industry and government agencies to make their plans for 2019.

They will therefore be compelled to plan for the worst situation, a Hard Brexit. Once the plans and money are committed to that, it's going to be very hard to turn it back.

The only way out would be to postpone Brexit for a year, maybe, and the Maybot has already announced the government's intention to legally pin it to March 2019, so that will not be able to happen.

If were up to me, they'd be getting their 60 billion. At a tenner a week!

Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.

There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.

There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.

Shame some of our MEPs don't bother to turn up then.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If were up to me, they'd be getting their 60 billion. At a tenner a week!

Why? Just to be difficult? This is why we struggle to take you seriously.

We want the EU to take us seriously and work with us going forwards. Stupid ideas like that will only hurt us.

Lets be honest - we need the EU to accept our payment more than they need to accept it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The idea that planes wouldn't be travelling from the UK to the EU in a no deal scenario, is concentrated hogwash from top to bottom.

Not at all. If we leave the European aviation agency, whatever it's called, then UK based operators with no EU base suddenly lose their license to operate in EU airspace until a deal is reached. We'd make one pretty quickly, but it requires action beyond refusing to negotiate.

Realistically though, most of the operators aren't going to risk us stuffing it up and have created EU subsidiaries, and thus are funneling some of their tax away from us.

As much as I love Europe, and I do love Europe, the world no longer revolves around it.

The future is Asia, South America, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. etc.

I look at Europe, and I see fortress Europe. I see an organisation that is beloved by the big banks, the spivs, the corporate interests, and that tells me it's time to bail out.

I wish them the best of luck, but it' not for me.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As much as I love Europe, and I do love Europe, the world no longer revolves around it.

The future is Asia, South America, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. etc.

I look at Europe, and I see fortress Europe. I see an organisation that is beloved by the big banks, the spivs, the corporate interests, and that tells me it's time to bail out.

I wish them the best of luck, but it' not for me.

As the Leavers are so keen on pointing out - no-one is forcing you to stay

I agree that the future is Asia, but we can still leverage that future much better off as part of the EU, because it gives us about a 10x clout boost.

Plus whilst the future is Asia, the present is Europe.

I doubt the future will really be South America or India. Maybe after China has had it's day and we're making shoes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.

There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.

Even if every single British MEP turned up and opposed Juncker's candidacy, we'd still get him.

Britain being at the mercy of Estonian, Maltese, Finnish, or any other nation's voters, is not my idea of democracy

On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker

Only after he was hand picked by Merkel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As much as I love Europe, and I do love Europe, the world no longer revolves around it.

The future is Asia, South America, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, The Philippines etc. etc.

I look at Europe, and I see fortress Europe. I see an organisation that is beloved by the big banks, the spivs, the corporate interests, and that tells me it's time to bail out.

I wish them the best of luck, but it' not for me.

As the Leavers are so keen on pointing out - no-one is forcing you to stay

I agree that the future is Asia, but we can still leverage that future much better off as part of the EU, because it gives us about a 10x clout boost.

Plus whilst the future is Asia, the present is Europe.

I doubt the future will really be South America or India. Maybe after China has had it's day and we're making shoes.

I don't deny the EU has some clout in trade deals, but by the time the EU wrap it up in volumes of regulations and standards, we're usually 10 years behind where we should be.

The Canada trade deal being a good example of that.

If every Labour MP turned to oppose Maybot as PM, we would still get her.

If the UK doesn't want Juncker for President of the Commission, it's up to our MEPs to get together with MEPs from the other nations, and form a voting bloc to keep him out. That's how things work in a representative democracy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Juncker is the first President that prior to the election has campaigned as a candidate for the position, a process introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon. The EPP won 220 out of 751 seats in the Parliament. On 27 June 2014, the European Council officially nominated Juncker for the position,[3][4][5] and on 15 July 2014, the European Parliament elected him with a majority of 422 votes from a total of 729 cast.

There you go. We could vote Junker out, through the EU Parliament.

Even if every single British MEP turned up and opposed Juncker's candidacy, we'd still get him.

Britain being at the mercy of Estonian, Maltese, Finnish, or any other nation's voters, is not my idea of democracy

I don't like Sweden's economy being dependent on the UK, so I say we should annex you to make sure you don't do anything silly!


See how silly this gets? You're always dependent on other countries, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise. In this sense, not even Britain is an island.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
if every single British MEP turned up

That's a big ask. We can barely get some of them to turn up for comissions they are a part of.

Britain being at the mercy of Estonian, Maltese, Finnish, or any other nation's voters, is not my idea of democracy

No, you're idea of a democracy is getting your own way all of the time and refusing to let anyone else have their way.

Only after he was hand picked by Merkel.

So are you saying that the vote was somehow rigged? Or that a well respected national president isn't allowed to recommend someone?

I don't deny the EU has some clout in trade deals, but by the time the EU wrap it up in volumes of regulations and standards, we're usually 10 years behind where we should be.

The Canada trade deal being a good example of that.

Then why don't we use what little influence we have left to hurry them up?

Are they slow because the EU is lumbering, or are they slow because there's a lot of detail?

Do you think we'll fare better without them, in terms of the quality of deal we get or how long it takes?

Our population is a rounding error for China, and our economy some way behind theirs. Why would they give us anything that suits us but not them?
This is the same China that (AIUI) still insists that any company trading in China has a partially state-owned subsidiary, will clearly favor Chinese interests and has no issues with wholesale copyright violations? That's not even getting into the vast cultural differences that makes negotiating with them on a person-to-person or busines-to-business level really difficult for a westerner.
Or the same China that's in the process of funding a cargo rail line all the way to Paris? So we'll get to use air or sea mail whilst most of Europe can take advantage of high speed rail haulage.
The same China that wants to use the UK to gain cheap access to the EU markets?

You do know he was voted in because

THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.

Skullhammer wrote:
You do know he was voted in because

THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.

And what'd happen if the result was a no?

Whilst I'd rather see a few candidates, I'm fine with a proposal and approval approach, since it's a commission role. Saves a lot of overhead with elections.

Skullhammer wrote:
You do know he was voted in because

THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.

Replace Juncker with Theresa May. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Replace Juncker with Theresa May. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I’m going to call absolute bollocks on this. We had several candidates to vote from, and ultimately it was a choice between May and Corbyn.

Actually neither May nor Corbyn are elected to their offices by the electorate. They are chosen by their parties.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually neither May nor Corbyn are elected to their offices by the electorate. They are chosen by their parties.

Precisely. You have a choice of parties to vote for, but no direct say in who runs the show.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

The parties chose their leader, and then the people vote on the parties via a combination of their local representative and the leader. The public get a chance to directly affect who’s PM, albeit in a less than perfect way. Not so with the President of the European Commission. He’s picked by the council and then voted in by MEPs. The public don’t get a look in. If they did, do you really think Drunker would hold that office? At least May had to answer directly to voters. And guess what? They didn’t actually like her that much and give her a ‘slap’ so to speak. And she was a leading figure in the party who won the 2015 election too who decided to carry out the result of a referendum. And to top it all off, she herself is an MP. So no matter what way you look at it, she is more accountable to voters than El Presidente will ever be.

Skullhammer wrote:
You do know he was voted in because

THERE WAS NO OTHER CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR AND ONLY HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT.

He was choosen by the commision(unelected) then put to the vote of the eu parliment yes or no. This is how ALL the 5 eu presidents are picked Is that really the democracy you want to be part of? Because i shore as gak dont.

Very misleading isn't it? Because there were other candidates in the election. Juncker was the only one on the 'ballot' because his party got the most votes in parliament. It like complaining that if Labour wins, parliament can't confirm May as PM. If you wanted another President, you should have voted for another party in the EP elections. If another party had gained more votes their candidate would have been on the 'ballot'. Therefore he got the first attempt at setting up his commission, which is not unelected btw, it is by indirect democracy through the government of the member states, that we get to vote for.

This is like complaining the EP didn't overturn the party with the biggest share of votes, they saw no problem with how Juncker had set up the commission and confirmed him. How is that undemocratic?

https://euobserver.com/eu-elections/124388

Described as a Brussels insider and a federalist, Juncker was chosen because he hails from the largest political group in the European Parliament, the centre-right EPP. Elections results handed the party 213 seats, 23 ahead of its closest rival the centre-left S&D.

Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

Skullhammer wrote:
Eu commisioners are APPOINTED by the member states not elected. Ambassadors are also appointed and so are many others the major difference is NOT ONE OF THEM except the eu appointie can make laws and regs that will effect there country. You are simingly happy to have a unelected person making laws and regs........

I'll leave this part now as rerunning the bexit referendem is point less its happened the uk is leaving.

And the governments of those member states are dictatorships? Or do their populations elect them? Every member states has an elected government that picks a representative. That's what indirect democracy means. Come on now... This is like complaining you can't directly elect ministerial positions on the national level. Its just as democratic.