[Politics] Brexit

[BigGully]

You really are a moron.

1) You claim you were drinking in a certain pub with Bryan Robson in 1972.
2) I state he was just 15 in 1972 and call bullshit on your story.
3) You then post a Guardian article about “the three degrees” who were Regis, Batson and Cunningham to back up your story. This article, by virtue of the fact it involves these players, relates to 1977 at the earliest. It does not relate to Bryan Robson in 1972.
4) You know full well I did not state, or even imply, you were boozing with Regis. You are using diversionary tactics from the main thrust of my argument which is.....you’re a liar.

Now, is that simple enough for your pea-sized bull shitting brain?

Not feeling it today then HT ...........

 

[pastafarian]

Have a look at some of the many comments on here - https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/

Plenty of people fuming.

A facebook page of comments?Think ill pass for the moment thanks. Whatever next,links to The Daily Testicle?
Are they as uninformed as you? Feel free to share some of them on here if it makes you feel better.

 

[ManOfSussex]

A facebook page of comments?Think ill pass for the moment thanks. Whatever next,links to The Daily Testicle?
Are they as uninformed as you? Feel free to share some of them on here if it makes you feel better.

They're just ordinary people who voted leave, like most people I know - I even know a couple of people in that group. I doubt someone like you would feel too comfortable in their presence though, hence your haughty, condescending attitude to them, so probably best you don't read them and stay in your safe little bubble.

 

[pastafarian]

They're just ordinary people who voted leave, like most people I know - I even know a couple of people in that group. I doubt someone like you would feel too comfortable in their presence though, hence your haughty, condescending attitude to them, so probably best you don't read them and stay in your safe little bubble.

I will read almost anything from all spectrums to find balanced information.
I generally swerve facebook and twitter on brexit though, its infested by wallies and fake news for idiots.........you carry on though

 

[Titanic]

I will read almost anything from all spectrums to find balanced information.
I generally swerve facebook and twitter on brexit though, its infested by wallies and fake news for idiots.........you carry on though

Ineed, they are both echo chambers where people choose who they want to listen to based on their own predilections and prejudices. Not a great forum for enlightened and challenging debate.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I will read almost anything from all spectrums to find balanced information.
I generally swerve facebook and twitter on brexit though, its infested by wallies and fake news for idiots.........you carry on though

I don't look at them for news - it's more the comment from actual people that I know or know of that are of vague interest - unlike anything you have to say on anything, as you and your views are an irrelevance to me.

 

[vegster]

Problem for Farage is that UKIP barely exists as a political party so unless him and the other Brexit headbangers like IDS, Jenkin etc take over the Tory Party there is little he can do but grizzle on the TV

I can't remember who is the official UKIP Party Leader is this week, looks like Nige has put his CV back in the frame. It's the second occurrence of the tail wagging the dog this week !

Marvellous scenes !

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Ineed, they are both echo chambers where people choose who they want to listen to based on their own predilections and prejudices. Not a great forum for enlightened and challenging debate.

Unlike NSC...!!!

 

[ManOfSussex]

They are conspicuous by their absence this morning.

[tweet]939097730642862080[/tweet]

 

[pastafarian]

Remainers have moved the Soft Brexit Hard Brexit goalposts again today.
Never thought i would hear some of them say out of the single market, out of the customs union,ending free movement, ending ECJ primacy(except for citizens rights 8 years) was a soft brexit victory

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not feeling it today then HT ...........

I don’t like liars.

That said, using a Guardian article in an attempt to back up his bullshit did make me chuckle.

 

[tinycowboy]

that would be money that the EU say we are obligated to pay... so you dont agree with the budgets and payments to the institutions of the EU? i find this line of attack on the bill very very strange.

i always questioned what was supposed to be included in these obligations that the bill could be possibly 100Bn as widely speculated earlier in the process. now we see what is there, couple of years of the existing budget, rollover of the budget to cover in flight projects, its substantial, but more aligned to what one expected to pay, and would have paid if we stayed in.

I haven't read the detail, only the headlines, but you seem to have them: in the Guardian (bear with me), it states that "There is no figure on how much the UK is expected to pay but the document sets out how the bill will be calculated – expected to be about £50bn. The UK agrees to continue to pay into the EU budget as normal in 2019 and 2020. It also agrees to pay its liabilities such as pension contributions."

What is the distinction between liabilities here and the (expected) £50bn? Liabilities are normally defined as current obligations (I'm simplifying this a bit, but it'll do). Therefore, we could expect the liabilities to cover all existing agreed obligations (ie past budgets, pension deficits). The £50bn therefore should include elements that have not been agreed by us and which relate to the future, from which we may (will?) not benefit. If this is correct, this is effectively a penalty, a straight loss of £50bn, isn't it? I understand that, if you voted to leave, you may feel this is a price worth paying to prevent whatever the future may have brought had we remained in the EU, but I just wanted to clarify whether this £50bn (or whatever it ends up being) is a straight loss, or a repayment of an existing liability (ie that relates to benefits we will receive).

 

[Two Professors]

Bit of a compromise here,methinks.

 

[Two Professors]

You really are a moron.

1) You claim you were drinking in a certain pub with Bryan Robson in 1972.
2) I state he was just 15 in 1972 and call bullshit on your story.
3) You then post a Guardian article about “the three degrees” who were Regis, Batson and Cunningham to back up your story. This article, by virtue of the fact it involves these players, relates to 1977 at the earliest. It does not relate to Bryan Robson in 1972.
4) You know full well I did not state, or even imply, you were boozing with Regis. You are using diversionary tactics from the main thrust of my argument which is.....you’re a liar.

Now, is that simple enough for your pea-sized bull shitting brain?

Still hungover,or still a little drunk?You are normally a bit more civil when sober.Try actually reading what I have written when your eyes can focus properly.I really don't know if you are just being obtuse,are still intoxicated,or really are a bit brain damaged.

 

[Two Professors]

I don’t like liars.

That said, using a Guardian article in an attempt to back up his bullshit did make me chuckle.

The only place that has a mention of the Four in Hand as the players regular pub.It surprised me,as well.

 

[Titanic]

Nice quote from Michel Barnier at this morning's press conference when asked if the deal meant that the default position is remaining in the single market:

“No. You havent understood that well… beyond its decision to leave the EU… the British government has confirmed that it wishes also to leave the single market and the customs union which is not obligatory. There are countries who are not E.U. members, who are part because that is their wish, whilst respecting of the rules of the single market. But that’s not the choice taken by the UK. So you have not understood that well.”

That kills that notion stone dead then.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Nice quote from Michel Barnier at this morning's press conference when asked if the deal meant that the default position is remaining in the single market:

“No. You havent understood that well… beyond its decision to leave the EU… the British government has confirmed that it wishes also to leave the single market and the customs union which is not obligatory. There are countries who are not E.U. members, who are part because that is their wish, whilst respecting of the rules of the single market. But that’s not the choice taken by the UK. So you have not understood that well.”

That kills that notion stone dead then.

Does it? As these negotiations have shown, what the government wishes and what actually happens are two different things.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Nice quote from Michel Barnier at this morning's press conference when asked if the deal meant that the default position is remaining in the single market:

“No. You havent understood that well… beyond its decision to leave the EU… the British government has confirmed that it wishes also to leave the single market and the customs union which is not obligatory. There are countries who are not E.U. members, who are part because that is their wish, whilst respecting of the rules of the single market. But that’s not the choice taken by the UK. So you have not understood that well.”

That kills that notion stone dead then.

"The United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom."

"In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union."

When are agreed solutions happening? Anytime soon?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Still hungover,or still a little drunk?You are normally a bit more civil when sober.Try actually reading what I have written when your eyes can focus properly.I really don't know if you are just being obtuse,are still intoxicated,or really are a bit brain damaged.

I have re-read what you wrote....and it states quite clearly you claim your were boozing with Bryan Robson in 1972....at time when he had just signed as a schoolboy for WBA. Which part of this have I misunderstood?

 

[beorhthelm]

I haven't read the detail, only the headlines, but you seem to have them: in the Guardian (bear with me), it states that "There is no figure on how much the UK is expected to pay but the document sets out how the bill will be calculated – expected to be about £50bn. The UK agrees to continue to pay into the EU budget as normal in 2019 and 2020. It also agrees to pay its liabilities such as pension contributions."

What is the distinction between liabilities here and the (expected) £50bn? Liabilities are normally defined as current obligations (I'm simplifying this a bit, but it'll do). Therefore, we could expect the liabilities to cover all existing agreed obligations (ie past budgets, pension deficits). The £50bn therefore should include elements that have not been agreed by us and which relate to the future, from which we may (will?) not benefit. If this is correct, this is effectively a penalty, a straight loss of £50bn, isn't it? I understand that, if you voted to leave, you may feel this is a price worth paying to prevent whatever the future may have brought had we remained in the EU, but I just wanted to clarify whether this £50bn (or whatever it ends up being) is a straight loss, or a repayment of an existing liability (ie that relates to benefits we will receive).

first the budget for 2019-2020 would have been paid anyway as pre-existing obligations. same applies to pensions (and it highlights they are running unfunded pensions, which no one seems to care about). the other liabilities beyond the established budget are, we are told by the EU, for projects not yet paid for (?!?) or committed to which have not yet been begun or completed, part of the expected future budget (which will rise in the 2020). there's also some provisions against load guarantees and ECB or some such. we do not gain the benefits of projects to build infrastructure in Portugal or Bulgaria, other than the warm fussiness of helping raise the standards of Europeans. if those projects are in the UK, we'll still get those grants and payments. so there's no "penatly", unless they try to get us to pay for projects way off in the future after we've gone, which they dont appear to be doing.